Poland bans cultivation of GM maize, potatoes

Jan 02, 2013
"MON 810", a variety of genetically modified maize developed by Monsanto Company is pictured on January 23, 2012. Poland on Wednesday imposed new bans on the cultivation of certain genetically modified strains of maize and potatoes, a day after an EU required green light for GM crops took effect.

Poland on Wednesday imposed new bans on the cultivation of certain genetically modified strains of maize and potatoes, a day after an EU required green light for GM crops took effect.

The centre-right government of Prime Minister Donald Tusk imposed farming bans on German BASF's Amflora strain of potato and US firm Monsanto's MON 810 maize or corn, according to a government statement Wednesday.

The ban on specific strains essentially uses a to circumvent the EU's acceptance of such products.

Global environmental watchdog Greenpeace hailed the move, which will take effect on January 28.

"The government has kept its promises," Poland said in a statement.

Tusk had vowed to ban genetically modified (GM) crops in November on the heels of a Senate approval for the registration and sale of , which had been banned in Poland until then.

According to Tusk, under EU rules lawmakers had been forced to pass the blanket approval for GM crops which came into effect on January 1.

Explore further: New device could make large biological circuits practical

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

France asks EU to suspend GM crop authorisation

Feb 20, 2012

France's ecology ministry said Monday it had asked European regulators to suspend authorisation for the use of genetically modified MON 810 maize crops from US company Monsanto based on new studies.

EU divided over GM crops

Sep 27, 2010

A controversial EU bid to allow member states to make their own decisions on whether or not to ban GM crops hit a fresh snag on Monday when Italy and France dug in their heels against the move.

EU effort to end GM crop deadlock meets resistance

Jul 13, 2010

The European Commission sought Tuesday to end a deadlock blocking the growth of genetically modified crops in Europe, proposing to give countries the freedom to ban the controversial foods.

EU stuck on three new GM authorisations

Dec 16, 2011

Failure by EU agriculture ministers to decide on authorisation for three genetically-modified maize and cotton strains overnight left the matter in the hands of the EU executive on Friday.

Recommended for you

New device could make large biological circuits practical

10 hours ago

Researchers have made great progress in recent years in the design and creation of biological circuits—systems that, like electronic circuits, can take a number of different inputs and deliver a particular ...

Model evaluates where bioenergy crops grow best

13 hours ago

Farmers interested in bioenergy crops now have a resource to help them determine which kind of bioenergy crop would grow best in their regions and what kind of harvest to expect.

Vermicompost leachate improves tomato seedling growth

Nov 21, 2014

Worldwide, drought conditions, extreme temperatures, and high soil saline content all have negative effects on tomato crops. These natural processes reduce soil nutrient content and lifespan, result in reduced plant growth ...

User comments : 18

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Lurker2358
2 / 5 (4) Jan 02, 2013
We're already eating BT corn which produces a neurotoxicin strong enough to kill insects. No wonder we have outbreaks of diabetes and neurological disorders.

There's no telling what this crap is doing to us that we aren't being told.
Caliban
4 / 5 (4) Jan 02, 2013
I applaud each and every nation, EU or otherwise, that enacts a ban on GMO crops. Each new ban makes it that much easier to do the same in the good ol' US of A, where we are already exposed to a very long list of environmental and food-borne toxins each and every day that we spend upon this planet.

These blessings are made possible with the full knowledge, intention, and consent of our Government and Industry.

Thanks, y'all.

Lurker2358
1 / 5 (3) Jan 02, 2013
I'm not opposed to GM that takes good genes from different strains of the same species.

I just can't stand the fact that we're eating BT corn with a pesticide in it at the genetic molecular level. That's insane. I don't care what they claim, as a person suffering neurological pins and needles pain, I'm inclined to believe some of this may be BT related, or related to other crops similar to it.

If you want to use genes from different strains to engineer corn that grows an extra ear per stalk, or longer ears with more kernels, I could understand that if it's based only on genes that are already in the same species.

If you're taking bacteria and virus and jellyfish and now eel genes with the salmon, and God knows what else, and putting it in our food, that's dangerous IMO, because we don't have studies on what happens over long time periods to people who eat foods with those genes.

We don't widely eat that eel, and we don't eat the BT bacteria either, but now we eat a toxin or hormone
aloy
3 / 5 (2) Jan 02, 2013
I wonder how this people manage behind this new crops force all those goverments to impose their new technologies. Keep going this way, in the near future you wont be able to eat with out these guys permission. Why impose it? If people is not ready to receive it, they should back off. It is anti democratic. Besides it appeears that it is not good for your health.
ValeriaT
4 / 5 (4) Jan 02, 2013
The active proteins Cry1A / Cry1Ab in GMO food are very similar to bacterial toxins, against which the immune systems of living organisms (including human and bees) are programmed. The Bacillus thuringiensis is very close to anthrax pathogens (Bacillus anthracis) both morphologically, both genetically, so especially high risk of coincidence in immune reactions exists here.The low but permanent allergen concentration in food (GMO contaminated pollens at the case of bees) has a sensitization effect even for normal food components, because the correct function of biochemical pathways of adaptive immune system depends on temporary decrease of allergen concentration in reaction with specific antigen. If such decrease doesn't occur (because of human or bees are in permanent contact with GMO contaminated food every day), immune system continues in production of another various antigens until their number and concentration is so high, they can initiate an accidental violent allergic reaction.
ValeriaT
4 / 5 (4) Jan 02, 2013
For example, the introduction of GMO into Great Britain in 1998 has caused a statistically significant step in generally increasing rate of food allergy, because GMO import was enabled in food market stepwise in legal act, i.e. not gradually in this particular case. The connection of GMO pollens to the extinction of bees (Colony Collapse Disorder) has been documented with many scientific studies (1, 2, 3, 4,..) The BT in the corn pollen causes an immune system response in the bees — similar to if they had eaten the BT directly., which causes holes and porosity in their gut. bees infested with parasites who consume Bt pollen died at a high rate
ValeriaT
4 / 5 (4) Jan 02, 2013
The paper Environmental Risk Assessment of Transgenic Plants Using Honey Bee Larvae, produced by the Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, for example stated:
"Adult worker honey bees mainly eat pollen as nurse bees, with a peak in pollen intake at day nine after emerging. The pollen intake and, thus, amount and type of digested protein, is correlated to the developmental status of the hypopharyngeal glands... A crop expressing SBTI in a 1.0% concentration in pollen or nectar will, therefore, have both a direct impact on honey bee larvae through digestive inhibition (resulting in increased development time, increased juvenile mortality, and individuals surviving to adulthood being smaller) and an indirect impact through nourishment depletion through affected nurse bees.
The GMO doesn't kill bees directly, instead of it makes them more vulnerable to winter cold and pests.
ValeriaT
4 / 5 (4) Jan 02, 2013
Another problem is the GMO technology is not yet in its mature state and it's not very specific. The active Cry1A / Cry1Ab proteins are always produced in mixtures in GMO, some of active proteins (Cry1B, Cry3Bb1, Cry9c, EPSPS) in GMO strands aren't completely specific to Lepidopthera, they can affect a Hymenoptera (i.e. the ants, beetles and bees) and other higher organisms as well and a various toxicity synergies exist here. The low residual concentration of Bt toxins after corn harvest don't kill the pests, they enable to survive the winter and to mutate into highly resistant strains of pests.

So that the application of GMO maize is temporal solution anyway and we'll pay for it later with development of more resistant pests on your crops. These consequences are easily predictable.
ValeriaT
4 / 5 (4) Jan 02, 2013
Another problem is, the resistance of GMO plants against pests gives them an evolutionary advantage, so they've tendency to spread into wild with horizontal gene transfer mechanism (1, 2, 3, 4,...). It enables the pests both mutate faster, both it cases the decline of bumblebees and the bats, who consume the Bt intoxicated pollens of wild plants as a food. Again, these consequences were easily predictable: the GMO is the silent killer of the Nature around you and everything is documented already.
ValeriaT
4 / 5 (4) Jan 02, 2013
Monstanto is well aware of GMO risks, so it wants to introduce "terminator" genes, which would make GM varieties sterile to prohibit their spreading into wild. However, there is great concern that the sterility trait itself could spread to conventional crops or to related uncultivated plant species, thus bringing the civilization into extinction. How such experiments appear in praxis documents this example of GM-corn harvest in South Africa, which failed massively. Monsanto may have to repay 10 years of GM soya royalties in Brazil. Monsanto already admitted Bt cotton failed in India because of insect adaption
alfie_null
not rated yet Jan 06, 2013
to prohibit their spreading into wild

Thought that's what they had lawyers for.
ValeriaT
3 / 5 (2) Jan 06, 2013
Of course, the another way less moral purpose of termination genes is to prohibit the replanting of GMO products from seeds. The Monsanto would monopolize the seed business gradually in this way.
Roderick
1 / 5 (1) Jan 06, 2013
Valeria,

Most commercial insulin is produced using a GMO organism. Virtually everything man eats is the result of genetic modification. There are no chickens, pigs, cows, lambs, corn, wheat, ... in the wild. There is no difference in principle between gene splicing and traditional breeding methods. And I strongly doubt you can cite credible sources to back up your claims.
kochevnik
5 / 5 (1) Jan 06, 2013
I just can't stand the fact that we're eating BT corn with a pesticide in it at the genetic molecular level. That's insane. I don't care what they claim, as a person suffering neurological pins and needles pain, I'm inclined to believe some of this may be BT related, or related to other crops similar to it.
You need to get back to eating einkorn wheat: http://spirituali...at-belly
http://www.cbsnew...or-says/
ValeriaT
3 / 5 (2) Jan 06, 2013
There is no difference in principle between gene splicing and traditional breeding methods
The devils is just in details. The traditional breeding methods will not allow you incorporated the genes of squids into strawberry genome - it's merely mixing of very close genes. For example, the natural hybrids are more fertile and more resistant against pests and diseases, which is why so many historically widespread cultivars of apples and hens do exist in my country. The farmers did hybridization on their own yards, because it was most reliable way, how to keep the genetic diversity in cultural plants and animals. Whereas the GM organisms usually will not survive without elevated levels of antibiotics and they're often infertile. IMO it's because the artificially implanted genes are unstable and they tend to be knockouted with natural metabolical pathways in cells, which are considering them mutagenic.
ValeriaT
3 / 5 (2) Jan 06, 2013
Interestingly enough, the same reason, which makes the artificially introduced genes less capable of vertical gene transfer (i.e. spreading through normal reproduction) makes them more susceptible for horizontal gene transfer and spreading into wild. It's analogy of spreading of waves in physical systems: the more it blocks the transverse waves, the better it conducts longitudinal ones and vice-versa.

The biological systems, which are subject of long-term evolutionary equilibrium are genetically stable like well sedimented rock: there is little risk, some gene would cross the interspecies boundary. For artificially introduced genes it's more probable instead: they're apparently more volatile and they can spread easily into wild. IMO it's because genetic manipulations are using the same viruses, which exist in the wild and the artificially introduced genes have "handles", which make such spreading possible in the lab and as such easier in the wild.
ValeriaT
3 / 5 (2) Jan 06, 2013
So whereas the traditional breeding methods can be often understood as the accelerated way of achieving genetic equilibrium, the artificial gene transfer methods are bringing the genome of biosphere in metastable state. In this sense their impact to ecosystems may be exactly the opposite. The traditional breeding methods bring more biodiversity, the artificial methods could decrease it instead, for example with fast spreading of "superweeds", which would be resistant against all common pests more, than the cultural plants.
Tausch
3 / 5 (2) Jan 07, 2013
The ABCs'* of human extinction.
I vehemently resent solving the Fermi paradox this way.

*(Atomic, biological, chemical)

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.