Hope Not Hype - Third World Network

104 Hope Not Hype
The sexual flow of transgenes is an advantage when a company wants to breed a
transgene-controlled trait into varieties that suit particular markets and then sell them to
farmers. It is a disadvantage when the transgene spreads outside of the developer’s control,
or when the presence of the transgene causes environmental harms, triggers regulatory
actions or causes a loss of market certifications to non-GM farmers (Heinemann, 2007;
Khoury and Smyth, 2007). And these are not just hypothetical harms. Transgene flow has
been the cause of herbicide-tolerant weeds (Chapter Six), lawsuits (Appendix Four), fines
and product recalls (CBS News, 2008; Center for Food Safety, 2005; Heinemann, 2007;
Heinemann et al., 2004; Herrera, 2005; Vermij, 2006).
He also knows that one of those [rice] lines, LLRICE601, was grown on less than one acre.
What he is not clear on is how the line then wended its way into the food supply. That little
mystery is now the subject of an official investigation and a class-action lawsuit…Meanwhile,
Bayer CropScience, the company that created the rice strain, put the blame squarely on farmers
and an “act of God”. By that logic, this would not be the first time that a deity has aided and
abetted the escape of a genetically engineered crop. On 21 December, Syngenta was fined
$1.5 million for allowing its unapproved pest-resistant Bt10 corn (maize) to mix into seed
distributed for food. The past decade is smattered with examples of unapproved crops sneaking
through containment barriers. When they make it into the food supply – as with LLRICE601
and Bt10 – public outcry and financial losses follow (Ledford, 2007, p. 132).
Using a legal instrument to secure intellectual property also introduces legal liabilities.
As discussed in Chapter Four, these liabilities are based on presence of the transgene
rather than the harm of a trait per se (GAO, 2008), leading to exceptional quantitative
levels of risk exposure (Heinemann, 2007).
“Who is, or is not, liable for damage caused by genetic modification Who should be To
what extent” These questions presuppose that damage will inevitably flow from the genetic
modification of plants, animals, or microbes. This is, to some extent, true. For instance,
international trade could potentially be damaged should a commodity export be tested and
found to contain unacceptable levels of transgenic varieties. Domestic production of non-
GM crops could also be affected by the widespread cultivation of GM crop varieties. Ultimately,
one overriding query has begun to emerge in recent years: Is liability incurred if a sales
market is lost as a result of the comingling of GM seeds with non-GM seeds, and if so, who
is to be held liable Beyond the financial losses that GM crop production could cause, one
can question whether there can be liability on the part of GM producers and users should the
release of this biotechnology into the environment be proven to cause injury to human health
or to ecosystems (Khoury and Smyth, 2007, pp. 220-221).
Intellectual property rights are consolidating the seed industry
The patenting of germplasm is concentrating IPR-based control of the seed supply
under a very small number of multinational corporations (Adi, 2006; Barlett and Steele,
2008; Graff et al., 2003; Sagar et al., 2000).