Journal of Environment Protection and Sustainable Development
Articles Information
Journal of Environment Protection and Sustainable Development, Vol.4, No.3, Sep. 2018, Pub. Date: Jun. 14, 2018
Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) as Invasive Species
Pages: 31-37 Views: 4046 Downloads: 332
Authors
[01] John Paull, Geography and Spatial Sciences, School of Technology, Environments & Design, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia.
Abstract
This paper frames genetically modified organisms (GMOs) as invasive species. This offers a way of considering the reception, diffusion and management of GMOs in the foodscape. “An invasive non-native species is any non-native animal or plant that has the ability to spread causing damage to the environment, the economy, our health and the way we live” (NNSS, 2017). Without any social licence, pesticide companies have thrust GMOs into the foodscape. The release of GMOs has generally been unwelcome, there has been no ‘pull’ factor from consumers and there has been vocal resistance from many. The apologists for GMOs have argued the self-contradictory conceit that GMOs are ‘same but different’. Under this logically untenable stance, GMOs are to be excluded from specific regulation because they are the ‘same’ as existing organisms, while simultaneously they are ‘different’ and so open to patenting. GMOs are patented and this demonstrates that, prima facie, these are novel organisms which are non-native to the foodscape. GMO apologists have campaigned intensively, and successfully in USA, to ensure that consumers are kept in the dark and that GMOs remain unlabelled - as a consequence GMOs are ubiquitous in US consumer foods. In contrast, in Australia GMOs are required to be labelled if present in consumer products and, in consequence, Australian food manufacturers do not use them. The release of a GMO calls for biosecurity measures. After trial plots of Monsanto GM canola in Tasmania in the 1990s, the sites continue to be biosecurity monitored for GMO escape, and volunteer canola plants continue to appear two decades later. In Western Australia the escape of GMO canola into a neighbouring organic farm resulted in the loss of organic certification and the monetary loss of the organic premium for produce. GMO produce sells for a 10% discount because of market forces and the consumer aversion to GMOs. Where non-GM product is accidentally contaminated with some GM grain, the whole batch is discounted and is sold as GMO. There is a lack of evidence that GMOs can be contained and many jurisdictions have banned the introduction of GMOs. GMOs have the potential and the propensity to contaminate non-GMO crops and thereby devalue them. The evidence is that GMOs are invasive species, they are unwelcome by consumers, peaceful coexistence with non-GM varieties is a fiction, and GMOs are appropriately managed as a biosecurity issue.
Keywords
Genetically Modified Organisms, GM Food, Canola, Percy Schmeiser, Canada, Western Australia, Marsh v Baxter, Monsanto
References
[01] Weber, K., ed. Cane Toads and Other Rogue Species. 2010, PublicAffairs: New York.
[02] CoA, Turning back the tide - the invasive species challenge: Report on the regulation, control and management of invasive species and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Invasive Species) Bill 2002. 2004, Canberra: Parliament of Australia, Commonwealth of Australia (CoA).
[03] Mercer, P., The rapid spread of Australia's cane toad pests. 2017, Sydney: BBC.
[04] McLeod, R., Counting the Cost: Impact of Invasive Animals in Australia, 2004. 2004, Canberra: Cooperative Research Centre for Pest Animal Control.
[05] Turvey, N., Cane Toads: A Tale of Sugar, Politics and Flawed Science. 2013, Sydney: Sydney University Press.
[06] DEWHA, Australian Government Policy on Cane Toads. 2009, Canberra: Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA).
[07] Bókony, V., et al., Chronic exposure to a glyphosate-based herbicide makes toad larvae more toxic. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 2017. 284 (1858).
[08] SSCECA, Inquiry into the regulation, control and management of invasive species and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Invasive Species) Bill 2002. 2004, Canberra: Senate Standing Committees on Environment, Communications and the Arts (SSCECA), Parliament of Australia.
[09] CBD, What are Invasive Alien Species? 1992, Rio de Janeiro: Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), United Nations.
[10] DEE, Invasive Species. 2017, Canberra: Department of the Environment and Energy.
[11] NNSS, Definition of Terms. 2017, London: Non-native Species Secretariat (NNSS).
[12] NISIC, What is an Invasive Species? 2016, Beltsville, MD: National Invasive Species Information Center (NISIC), United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).
[13] Horsch, R., et al., Inheritance of functional foreign genes in plants. Science, 1984. 223: p. 496-498.
[14] Burger, W., Sidney A. Diamond, Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks v. Ananda M. Chakrabarty, et al. 1980, Washington: Supreme Court of the United States. Decided 16 June.
[15] Paull, J., Beyond equal: from same but different to the doctrine of substantial equivalence. M/C Journal of Media and Culture, 2008. 11 (26).
[16] Daniel, D., The Vicious Cycle of GMO Opposition. Food Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2016. 6 (3): p. 1-12.
[17] Evers, A.-L. B. and K. L. Bayliss, Genetically modified food and public perceptions: Conceptualizing community understanding outside expert scientific sources. Food Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2017. 7 (1): p. 39-54.
[18] James, C., Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2013. Brief 46. 2014, Manila, Philippines: International Service for the Aquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA).
[19] CBAN, Where in the World are GM Crops and Foods? 2015, Ottawa: Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (CBAN).
[20] GfK, Decision Factors on What to Eat or Drink: Global GfK Survey (October 2017). 2017, London: GfK (Growth from Knowledge).
[21] OECD, Safety Evaluation of Foods Derived by Modern Biotechnology: Concepts and Principles. 1993, Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
[22] OECD, For a Better World Economy. 2008, Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
[23] Paull, J., Submission to: Inquiry into mechanisms for compensation for economic loss to farmers in Western Australia caused by contamination by genetically modified material. 2018, Perth: Environment and Public Affairs Committee, Parliament of Western Australia.
[24] O'Brien, R., To Our Senate: The Countries that label GMOs (& How Hostess labels them). robynobrien.com, 2016. 1 March.
[25] Trafford, D., Sen. Nesselbush calls for labeling of genetically modified products. State of Rhode Island General Assembly News, 2015. 12 March.
[26] Addady, M., President Obama signed this GMO Labeling Bill. Fortune, 2016. 1 August.
[27] CFS, About Genetically Engineered Foods. 2017, Washington: Center for Food Safety (CFS).
[28] Jalonick, M. C., House passes bill to prevent mandatory GMO food labeling. The Rundown, PBS NewsHour, 2015. 23 July.
[29] Paull, J., USA: California rejects mandatory GMO labelling. Organic News, 2012. 14 November, http://oneco.biofach.de.
[30] Prentice, C., U.S. GMO food labeling bill passes Senate. Reuters, 2016. 8 July.
[31] DPIPWE, Audit Report - May 2014 - Former Genetically Modified Canola Trial Sites. 2014, Hobart: Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (DPIPWE).
[32] Pacific Seeds, Possible record breaking canola crop harvested in Tasmania., 2017, Toowoomba: Pacific Seeds Media Release. 16 January.
[33] MacKay, J., Monsanto Canada Inc. and Monsanto Company Plaintiffs and Percy Schmeiser and Schmeiser Enterprises Ltd. 2001 FCT 256. 2001, Ottawa: Federal Court Decisions.
[34] McLachlin, B., et al., Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser, [2004] 1 S. C. R. 902, 2004 SCC 34. 2001, Ottawa: Supreme Court Judgements. 21 May.
[35] CBC News, Percy Schmeiser's battle. 2004, Toronto: CBC News. 21 May.
[36] Paull, J., The threat of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to organic agriculture: A case study update. Agriculture & Food, 2015. 3: p. 56-63.
[37] Martin, K., Judgment: MARSH -v- BAXTER [2014] - WASC 187BC201302729; CIV 1561/2012. 2014, Perth: Supreme Court of Western Australia.
[38] Paull, J., GMOs and organic agriculture: Six lessons from Australia. Agriculture & Forestry, 2015. 61 (1): p. 7-14.
[39] OGTR, The Biology and Ecology of Canola (Brassica napus). 2002, Canberra: Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR).
[40] Robinson, A. P., et al., eds. Invasive Species: Risk Assessment and Management. 2017, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
600 ATLANTIC AVE, BOSTON,
MA 02210, USA
+001-6179630233
AIS is an academia-oriented and non-commercial institute aiming at providing users with a way to quickly and easily get the academic and scientific information.
Copyright © 2014 - 2017 American Institute of Science except certain content provided by third parties.