First multiple HT GM gene-flow discovered in UK OSR trials

( the address of this page is: www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/UKOSRHTGMgene-flow.htm )

28 March 2000

The latest report below on the 'BRIGHT' Project [1] confirms that gene-flow is already occurring between different herbicide tolerant (HT) [2] oilseed rape (OSR) crops in UK field trials, which in the process is creating unintended multiple herbicide tolerance:

"There was some hybridisation between adjacent plots of different HT rape varieties..."

Whilst the report on these government co-sponsored trials tries to play down the significance of the discovery a number of important points arise:

1) Transgenic gene flow would already appear to be unintentionally taking place between different OSR varieties in the UK.

2) Multiple herbicide tolerance is being unintentionally created within individual plants.

3) Because shed oilseed rape seed can remain dormant in the ground for several years farmers are clearly going to have problems further down the line with this situation. This is likely to happen, for example, when spraying stubbles later in the rotation which have freshly germinated OSR seeds in them.

4) How are farmers going to know which herbicides to use in these cases several years later on?  Stubbles are often 'cleaned' using the very types of 'total' herbicides that these genes provide tolerance to (spraying herbicide tolerant oilseed rape volunteers in subsequent wheat and barley crops with 'standard herbicide programmes' as suggested here will not get round this problem - such programmes generally do not deal with problem weeds such as couch grass traditionally controlled in stubble treatments with 'total' herbicides. Farmers will no longer be able to successfully treat such stubbles with a single herbicide).

5) These findings are unlikely to be a short term 'marginal' issue as similar problems are already cropping up in Canada on a wider scale after several years of commercial canola (oilseed rape) cropping. The problem is sufficiently severe that it has necessitated the introduction of a complex 9 point management plan in order to attempt to deal with the issue (for more on this see: http://www.producer.com/articles/20000210/news/20000210news01a.html and http://www.producer.com/articles/20000210/news/20000210news01.html ).

6) The situation in Canada is already causing farmers to broaden the range of chemicals they use, forcing them to resort to using additional chemicals such as 2,4-D. 

7) The introduction to this latest BRIGHT report acknowledges that in this type of scenario: "Land could become infested with herbicide tolerant weeds and volunteers to the extent that GM crops could no longer be exploited and conventional crop management would need to be modified."

8) This may not be a problem just for those farmers who plant genetically modified herbicide tolerant crops, but also for neighbours where pollination or other forms of transmission (e.g via vehicles or animals) spreads genetic material across farm boundaries.  In this way one farmer can end up making herbicides on another's farm ineffective.  This type of situation is already leading to litigation in Canada (see: http://www.netlink.de/gen/Zeitung/1999/991224.htm ).

As the BRIGHT trials are already confirming the occurrence of this type of phenomenon in the UK it is not clear why the DETR is allowing the newly announced additional field scale OSR trials to proceed. Clearly DETR must be aware of these findings via MAFF who is one of the co-sponsors of the BRIGHT trials - or is MAFF keeping the information from DETR?

For more information on the BRIGHT trials contact Dr Jeremy Sweet at the National Institute of Agricultural Botany jeremy.sweet@niab.com (National Institute of Agricultural Botany, Huntingdon Road, Cambridge, CB3 0LE. Tel: 01223 276381 - Fax: 01223 277602 ) who no doubt will very pleased to hear from you!

All in all the future prospects for GM herbicide tolerant crops in the UK do not look very 'BRIGHT', but then genetic modification never has been a 'BRIGHT' thing to do in the first place [4].

NATURAL LAW PARTY WESSEX
nlpwessex@bigfoot.com
www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex

Footnotes:

1.'BRIGHT' - 'Botanical and Rotational Implications of Genetically Modified Herbicide Tolerance'.

2. Two types of transgenic (GM) oilseed rape are included in the trials.

3. It is not clear why this report has not provided data on crop yields given that one of the objectives of the project is 'to determine the agricultural implications of herbicide tolerant crops' (herbicide tolerant crops often produce lower yields than conventional varieties and this information is usually as important to farmers, if not more so, as the other aspects of their agronomy reported here - for more on this see: http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/monsanto_sustainabilty.htm and http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/yieldproblems.htm ).

4. Fundamental scientific conceptual errors in the development of recombinant DNA technology - http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/oecdgmerrors.htm
=============================================================================

The BRIGHT Project: Botanical and Rotational Implications of Genetically Modified Herbicide Tolerance: Progress Report, March 2000

Objectives: to determine the agricultural implications of herbicide tolerant crops and produce management information for their sustainable production.

Introduction: The BRIGHT project was initiated in Autumn 1998 to study the agricultural implications arising from the use of herbicide tolerant crops, including genetically modified varieties, in arable rotations. The research is being conducted by the Institute of Arable Crops Research, Morley Research Centre, The National Institute of Agricultural Botany and the Scottish Agricultural college in an industry/government consortium sponsored by MAFF, plant breeders, crop protection companies and farming organisations.

In the UK, two GM herbicide tolerances and one non-GM tolerance are currently being developed in oilseed rape and at least two GM tolerances in sugar beet/fodder beet and maize. They offer potential improvements in weed management, reduced crop damage and economic and environmental advantages. However, concerns have been expressed about how these crops will be managed and about potential adverse effects arising from inappropriate management. Land could become infested with herbicide tolerant weeds and volunteers to the extent that GM crops could no longer be exploited and conventional crop management would need to be modified. They may have an impact on biodiversity in arable fields and thus it is important that this new technology is thoroughly understood so that it can be appropriately incorporated into agricultural practice and farmers realise its benefits. The BRIGHT project is exploring such issues as the persistence of herbicide tolerant volunteer populations and rates of evolution of multiple tolerance especially in oilseed rape, arising from adjacent and sequential crops with different herbicide tolerances. In addition the impact on botanical diversity of changing from the use of selective herbicides to broad spectrum herbicides is being examined. This research project is studying the interactions between the different herbicide tolerances in a number of crops grown in rotation and will develop guidelines for their management.

Approaches: In year one of the four year project, a series of rotation experiments have been started which include three herbicide tolerant oilseed rape varieties and two GM herbicide tolerant sugar beet varieties. Three of the rotations include oilseed rape and have been designed to investigate the effects of growing herbicide tolerant rape in both normal farm rotations and in worst case scenarios (Table 1.). When the second broad-leaved crop is grown, the plots will be sown at 90° to the first crop, so that each sub-plot arising from this lattice approach will have a unique sequence of herbicide tolerant volunteers followed by the same or a different herbicide tolerance. In the third year of Rotation 3, different broad-leaved crops (HT and conventional) will be grown on the five sites, to compare the consequence of growing sequences of different herbicide tolerant crops.

Scientific Coordinator: Jeremy Sweet, NIAB. (jeremy.sweet@niab.com)

Project Chairman: Windsor Griffiths.

Results to date: The herbicide tolerant (HT) oilseed rape and sugar beet varieties performed as anticipated and showed no sensitivity to the herbicides. All herbicide tolerant crops had good levels of weed control and compared well with the standard herbicides used on conventional crops. Considerable differences in the weed populations were recorded at the different experimental sites in the first season so that no conclusions can yet be made on the relative efficacy and spectrum of activity of the herbicides.

There was some hybridisation between adjacent plots of different HT rape varieties which declined rapidly with distance from the interface between plots.

HT oilseed rape volunteers in subsequent wheat and barley crops were controlled by standard herbicide programmes showing that both the hybrids containing more than one tolerance and the single tolerance varieties are susceptible to standard cereal herbicide programmes.

Products: This project will produce evaluations of the different herbicide tolerances in integrated management systems. It will conduct an agronomic evaluation of the various rotations and treatments as well as an audit of the botanical diversity. Optimum management systems for GM/non-GM herbicide tolerant crops will be developed and the results communicated to farmers as guidelines for the management of herbicide tolerant crops.

Sponsors: MAFF, SERAD, HGCA, BBRO, Aventis, Crop Care, Cyanamid, Monsanto.

Researchers: IACR Broom&rsquos Barn, IACR Rothamsted, Morley Research Centre, National Institute of Agricultural Botany, Scottish Agricultural College (Aberdeen)

Table 1: BRIGHT Experimental Rotations

* cereal under-sown with GM rape or conventional beet seed

Table 2: Sequence of Sowing Herbicide Tolerant Crops in Rotation 1

Further information: jeremy.sweet@niab.com

Will GM crops deliver benefits to farmers? - some realities behind biotechnology myths
For more information on gm food risks click here

Why genetic engineering is not science based

NLP campaign to ban genetically modified foods in Wessex

Fundamental scientific conceptual errors in the development of recombinant DNA technology

Return to NLP Wessex GM page