Improved yields are a myth, activist claims

The genetic technologies are an assault on nature which attempt to exploit it for profits, says an environmental campaigner opposed to the early release of genetically-modified organisms.

Ms Sadhbh O'Neill, speaking for Genetic Concern, made an impassioned call for a debate on the ethics of genetic modification during the consultation process yesterday. It would be "premature to release products and crops because we don't know the effects down the line", she said.

"We need a precautionary approach. Nature does not use straight lines," she continued. "What we know about genetic engineering is vastly overshadowed by what we don't know." Claims about improved yields and reduced chemical inputs were a myth, she said.

Our present application of ethics could not cope with the genetic technologies, she said. Traditional ethics generally failed when applied to the interactions between humans and nature. "Technology is no longer ethically neutral," and the bio-sciences had adopted the language of obfuscation.

Dr Paul Dowding of Trinity College, also speaking for Genetic Concern, said he was an "eco-centric" scientist who had great worries about how the release of modified organisms might impact on agri-ecosystems in Ireland.

He had been monitoring pollen counts over Dublin for 25 years and knew about the complex mechanisms associated with pollen dispersal. These considerations were not being taken into account when those running field trials set up exclusion zones around GM crops. "There are risks that would be very difficult to predict from small trial fields."

Genetic engineering, he said, reduced plant diversity and encouraged mono-culture cropping. It could also reduce diversity of insect, bird and mammal populations. "Genetic modification technology is an important accelerator of the trend towards the green desert," he said.

Mr Quentin Gargan of Genetic Concern challenged the earlier claim by the Minister for the Environment, Mr Dempsey, that Ireland could not introduce a moratorium on GM crops because of EU regulations. "We wish that Ireland had the guts" to join others including Greece, Austria and Luxembourg in introducing limits to the introduction of GM crops and trials, he said.

The BSE scandal had frightened the consumer, he said. "Many people lost faith in scientists' ability to protect them."

He criticised claims that those opposed to the technology had no evidence that harm could be done by the introduction of GM crops. "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," he said. "This technology is totally irreversible. Ireland's agricultural industry would be better served by exploiting its green image, by moving into niche production that avoided the use of GM crops."

Dr Ruth McGrath of VOICE discussed the potential risks associated with GM crops and foods. "There are synergistic effects that you cannot identify in advance," she said.

Horizontal gene transfer, the movement of genes from a modified plant across to wild plant species, was an important consideration, and studies had shown there was potential for this gene transfer with unpredictable results. There were also indications of increased allerginicity to modified crops after studies suggested an increased number of allergic reactions to modified soya.

"The independent research has not been done," she concluded. "The evidence simply isn't there to prove that the technology is safe."