A scientist with a UK company which is carrying out field trials of genetically engineered sugar beet in Co Carlow has told the High Court that no adverse effects on the environment have been reported in relation to any trials carried out by the company in several countries.
Dr Catherine Webb of Monsan to plc said yesterday in an affidavit that claims of inadequate monitoring of the trial site at Oak Park, Co Carlow, to ensure no release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into the environment were incorrect.
She said Monsanto "can guarantee 100 per cent that no pollen will be released". The company had also "fully dealt" with the is sue of toxic or harmful effects on human health and the environment in its original applications for permission to carry out the tests.
She said the Environmental Protection Agency was satisfied the detailed procedures proposed by Monsanto for its tests would ensure "a negligible, if any, risk of GMO material entering the food chain".
It was simply incorrect to say there were no precautions to prevent the seeds to be planted from escaping on the way to the planting site or that there were no precautions to prevent the seeds escaping during planting due to the activity of birds or animals.
It was also wrong to argue that an EU Directive on the deliberate release into the environment of GMOs required a national authority to be satisfied that the risk involved in a test should be zero. If this were the case, it would be impossibly to develop any genetically modified products.
Dr Webb was answering concerns raised by Ms Clare Watson of the organisation Genetic Concern, and by another scientist, Dr Ricarda Steinbrecher, about the conduct of the Monsanto trials.
It was the third day of the challenge by Ms Watson to the decision of the EPA, on May 1st, 1996, to grant permission for the Monsanto trials on lands owned by Teagasc, at Oak Park, Co Carlow. The company is carrying out the trials to test the effect of its weedkiller - Roundup - on gly phosate-tolerant sugar beet.
In an affidavit presented to the court, Dr Steinbrecher said Mon santo had failed to submit adequate information to the EPA about its proposed trials when it applied, in December 1996, for permission to carry out the trials.
Because of the lack of information, the EPA could not have been satisfied that the proposed release of GMOs would not lead to adverse effects on human health or the environment.
Nothing stated in affidavits on behalf of Monsanto altered her opinion that the proposed release of the GMOs was premature, had not been adequately researched and was likely to lead to significant adverse effects on human health and the environment. It was "widely recognised that the process of genetic engineering can alter the characteristics of the organism in unanticipated ways".
She said no research had been carried out addressing this issue yet Monsanto claimed there was no harmful or toxic effect on humans.
The DNA being inserted into the sugar beet consisted of more than 11 DMA fragments spliced together from different organisms, including two viruses, three bacteria and two plants, she said.
"This is clearly a highly complex mixture of genetic information whose functions, when introduced into a new host, are not ful ly predictable." Monsanto had knowledge of some aspects of the function of the diverse sequences but the sequences "could easily contain additional, unsuspected functions".
In another affidavit, Prof David McConnell, professor of genetics at Trinity College Dublin, said he believed the Monsanto trials pose "no discernible risks to people, plants or the environment, either in the long or short term". "In my opinion, genetic engineering of plants carried out for specific and obviously beneficial objectives carries very few significant risks to man or the environment," he said. "This particular trial has no significant risks."
He said several statements made by Dr Steinbrecher were "unsupported by any scientific evidence".
Mr Paul Dowding, a lecturer with the botany department of Trinity College, said he found "extraordinary" the statement by Dr Webb that Monsanto could guarantee 100 per cent that no pollen would be released. No scientist should or could make a statement to that effect, he said.
The hearing continues today before Mr Justice O'Sullivan.
