Never have corporations been so obvious in their attempt to remove us
from Nature. The contamination of our seedstock is simply a
corporate business plan. Worse, it currently appears that governments
will support the rights of corporations to the owner ship of our
native food plants.
This is a very important topic. The future of the human race is
literally in our hands, or should I say, it's currently "up in the
air"?
Learn more about the preservation of our foundation seedstocks at
http://www.npsas.org/GMOFactSheet.html
Sign the petition there, but, PLEASE, don't think that that is all
you can or must do. -Allan
from the Northern Plains Sustainable Ag Society (url above)
Q. What is Transgenic Contamination?
A. Transgenic contamination (TC) occurs when a plant that contains
transgenic/genetically modified organisms (GMO) [such as a gene
inserted into plants to make them resistant to Roundup]
cross-pollinates with a plant that is not genetically modified. Some
of the seeds of the nontransgenic plant will then be transgenic. TC
can also occur through kernel flow or commingling of transgenic and
nontransgenic varieties.
Q. What are Foundation Seedstocks?
A. Foundation seedstocks (FS) are the seeds for varieties that are
grown directly from breeder's seed, registered seed or foundation
seed. They are produced under the control of the originator or
sponsoring institution or licensee. Breeder's seed is seed in its
purest form. Foundation seed is seed that has gone through increase
to make the variety available for certified seed production. If FS
were to be contaminated, the seed would have to be destroyed at the
expense of the program in order to contain the contamination. The FS
program would then have to go back to the breeder's seed and go
through the process of increasing that seed to rebuild the foundation
seedstocks, setting the program back and restricting supplies. Seed
would then go through the certified seed program to again make the
variety available to farmers.
Q. Why is a zero tolerance of seed contamination important?
A. Foundation seed is the genetic basis for the certified seed
program, giving producers access to seed certified to be what the
producer intends to purchase. A substantial number of our export
markets as well as Identity Preserved (IP) markets do not want
transgenic products due to food safety concerns on the part of their
consumers, and the lack of long-term testing and environmental impact
studies. Most organic standards do not have a tolerance level for
transgenic contamination. Access to genetically pure seeds safeguards
farmers' rights to self determination and their ability to produce to
the demands of their markets.
Q. Why focus only on the seed issue
and not on contamination in crop production?
A. TC during crop production is also a huge issue for agriculture.
However, if we lose the genetic purity of our seed sources, we will
have contamination regardless of what we do in the crop production
phase. It all begins with and depends on seed. It is a critical issue
and warrants our immediate attention.
Q. Where are Foundation Seedstocks kept?
Who is responsible for maintaining their purity?
A. Nearly every state maintains a Foundation Seedstocks program or is
affiliated with an agency that performs these functions. Many FS
programs are within the land grant university structure but may be a
separate legal entity. The purpose of these programs is to increase,
maintain and distribute genetically pure seed of new and established
crop cultivars.
Q. Why all the concern?
A. In March 2001 NPSAS discovered that a Round-up Ready wheat
research plot was located in proximity to the FS plot for Coteau
wheat at one of NDSU's Research Extension Centers during the 2000
growing season. Top of page
In April 2001 NPSAS received an email stating that "NDSU's position
regarding [wheat] varieties grown at NDSU Research Extension Centers
is such that there can be no guarantee that GMO DNA has not been
introduced."
Q. What isolation distances are required to keep
outcrossing by pollination from occurring?
A. In February 2001 when asked if there has been research on the
distances required to prevent gene flow through cross pollination in
wheat, NPSAS was told that the research has not been done. (Cole
Gustafson, personal communication, 2/26/01) To date the research and
understanding of crop pollination and the exact distances needed to
prevent pollen flow in various crops is incomplete and therefore
inadequate to provide any assurances.
Q. Is the same equipment used for Foundation
Seedstocks and transgenic research?
A. In some cases, yes, and in some cases, no.
Q. Can shared harvest, handling and cleaning equipment be cleaned
100% so that zero contamination is possible?
A. According to agricultural engineers, it is impossible to remove
every seed from combines, trucks and cleaning/conditioning equipment
even when it is completely dismantled, vacuumed and cleaned.
Researchers at the University of Manitoba found that kernel flow is a
bigger issue than pollen flow in canola, an outcrossing crop. Canola
pollen flows quite readily, yet kernel flow is the bigger culprit in
causing TC.
Q. Who should pay for the additional equipment and facilities
required to prevent transgenic contamination?
A. The corporations developing and profiting from transgenic crops
should include the cost of segregation in their development of new
transgenic varieties. If our land grant institutions require
additional equipment to carry out private research in a responsible
manner, the corporation contracting the research should be required
to provide it. Since separate equipment and facilities are not
provided, we demand the only method of ensuring zero contamination be
used-- do not grow, process or handle transgenic varieties in the
same facilities as our FS.
Q. Do our land grant researchers have access to a test for the
presence of the Round-up Ready gene in wheat seedstocks?
A. No. They cannot test for the presence of the gene in wheat but can
devise tests for the presence of plants that express the Round-up
Ready trait. However, the gene may be present even though the trait
is not expressed or the gene may be present in the form of dust or
plant debris. Monsanto alone is in a position to develop the PCR
test, a testing procedure which allows direct analysis of the DNA for
the presence of transgenic genes. However, the test is classified
'proprietary information' and our land grant universities do not have
access to it. In spite of research partnership agreements with
Monsanto, our land grants would have to develop their own testing
procedure at the public's expense to test for the presence of
Monsanto's proprietary genes in our foundation seedstocks. To develop
the test itself, they need access to the proprietary genetic
material; access they do not have.
Q. Is this request of our land grants realistic and attainable?
A. Our membership struggled with this question and came to the
conclusion that we need to demand what is needed-- not just what 'we
think we might get' as a response. This issue is far too serious a
matter to play games with. From there we must participate in the
discussion as to HOW to meet these needs.
