June 28, 2002

Gene-Altered Canola Pollen Can Spread to Other Fields 

By JILL CARROLL
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL


WASHINGTON  --   A  new  study  has  shown  that  the  pollen  of
genetically  modified  canola  can  spread  over  wide areas into
neighboring fields.   That  study,  together  with  other  recent
reports  of  similar  cross-pollination,  have  farmers concerned
about possible legal fallout.  

As researchers develop more genetically altered crops, the threat
grows  of  major  lawsuits  from  growers  who  don't  want   the
genetically modified crops mixing with their crops.  

The   biotechnology   industry   has   already   experienced  one
crop-contamination fiasco.   In  2000,  StarLink,  a  genetically
modified corn that contained a pesticide and was not approved for
human consumption, was found processed into taco shells and other
products.    The  discovery  resulted  in  sweeping  recalls  and
lawsuits from farmers and  grain  elevators.   StarLink's  maker,
Aventis  CropScience,  now a unit of Bayer AG,  has set aside €100
million ($98.2 million)  to cover  losses  by  farmers  and  food
companies.  

Genetically  modified  crops  contain genes designed to make them
better for farmers,  such as genes that allow plants  to  survive
when  sprayed  with  a  weedkiller.  All genetically altered crop
seed in the U.S.  has to be approved  by  the  U.S.   Agriculture
Department before being sold.  

Various  control  measures  are  put  in place when the seeds are
being tested,  but the USDA places no such  requirements  on  the
crops  once they are approved.  The new studies,  however,  could
put pressure on the USDA to  make  sure  those  requirements  are
adequate.   A  USDA  spokeswoman  said  it  had  not reviewed the
studies, but added that new science "is helpful." 

In one of the reports,  Australian researchers found that  pollen
from  a  canola plant bred to be herbicide-resistant could travel
nearly two miles away,  borne by wind and insects.  It is one  of
the  first  studies  to  look  at large,  commercial-size fields,
rather than  smaller  test  plots.   The  finding,  published  in
Friday's  issue  of  Science,  follows a Canadian study on canola
released this week that  found  several  varieties  of  so-called
clean  canola seeds contained some genetically modified material,
and blamed the breeder seeds they came from.  

The European Union also recently put out  a  paper  showing  that
genetically    modified    canola   is   at   "high   risk"    of
cross-pollinating with other canola crops.  

In the Australian study, about 63% of the fields tested turned up
some plants with modified genes, but the highest rate of modified
plants in nonmodified fields was  only  0.2%.   In  the  Canadian
study,  the  government said it still felt it would be relatively
easy to produce organic canola,  despite  the  mixing  of  canola
found.  

But  organic farmers say that the screening tests their customers
use to detect genes are so sensitive that they will pick up  even
tiny amounts.  

Farmer groups say they are concerned they could get sued if their
genetically altered crops drift into a field of unmodified crops.  

In  Canada,  a group of organic farmers filed a class-action suit
against Monsanto Co.,  of St.  Louis,  and  Aventis  CropScience,
claiming  their  genetically altered canola products drifted into
their fields,  causing them to lose  millions  of  dollars.   The
farmers in that case,  the Saskatchewan Organic Directorate, said
the recent Canadian canola study is essential to their case.  

Aventis declined to  comment.   A  Monsanto  spokesman  said  the
Australian  study  shows that "different forms of agriculture can
coexist." 

Such  a  lawsuit  in  the  U.S.   "would  have  huge   nationwide
implications,"  said Joe Logan,  a member of the National Farmers
Union.  "We feel definitely the liability needs to  be  with  the
corporations." 

Rep.   Dennis  Kucinich  (D.,  Ohio)  has proposed legislation to
place liability on the companies if the seeds are  used  properly
but  something  still  goes  wrong.  With time running out on the
legislative session,  the bill isn't expected  to  get  far  this
session, but could be re-introduced next year.  

The  Biotechnology  Industry  Organization says that there are no
liability risks with the crops,  but that those opposed  to  them
are trying to pretend there are.  

"If there is any [damage done] it is self-inflicted damage by the
organic  growers,"  said  Val  Giddings,  the  trade group's vice
president for food and agriculture.