Untitled Document

Oct. 10— Cross-pollination between GM plants and their wild relatives is inevitable and could create hybrid superweeds resistant to the most powerful weedkillers, according to the first national study of how genes pass from crops to weeds.

Its findings will raise concerns about the impact of GM crops. Next week the results will be published of farm-scale trials which have studied the impact on the countryside of three types of crop.

The government-funded scientists said the latest findings “contrast” with previous assessments of gene flow between farm crops and weeds. They had suggested that the danger of hybridization — where two types of plant cross-pollinate to create another, for example a superweed — was limited. Superweeds are considered to be a threat because, in some cases, they might absorb resistance to weedkillers from GM crops engineered to be herbicide-tolerant.

But the results of the research, which involved analyzing satellite images of the British countryside and patrolling 180 miles of riverbanks, reveal that hybridization is both more widespread and frequent than previously anticipated.

Mike Wilkinson of Reading University, who led the study published today in the journal Science, said physical barriers such as isolation distances — buffer zones designed to stop pollen spreading from GM crops into the wild — would have only a limited impact on preventing hybridization.

“This [study] shows that isolation distances will reduce hybrid numbers but not prevent hybridization. It depends on what level of hybridization you deem acceptable but if you want to absolutely prevent hybrids then isolation distances will not do so,” Dr. Wilkinson said. “Hybridization is more or less inevitable in the UK context,” he added. The study concentrated on non-GM oilseed rape and assessed how easily it crossbred with a near-relative in the wild called bargeman’s cabbage, also known as wild turnip, which typically grows along riverbanks. Although the research was based on conventional oilseed rape, Dr. Wilkinson said the conclusions applied to any flow of genes that could be expected from the GM varieties of oilseed rape that were undergoing farm-scale trials.

“Our findings are directly transferable to almost all sorts of genetically modified oilseed rape,” he said. “The only exceptions will be ones where there is male sterility introduced into the crop.”

Researchers scoured the countryside for sites where bargeman’s cabbage grew near to oilseed rape fields and they used DNA techniques to assess whether any hybrids between the crop and the wildflower had been produced as a result of pollen transfer.

The scientists, from the Natural Environment Research Council and the Center for Ecology and Hydrology in Dorset, calculated the frequency of hybridization and used it to estimate the number of hybrids that would form each year across the UK.

They concluded that typically there would be 32,000 hybrids produced annually in wild riverside populations of bargeman’s cabbage, and a further 17,000 hybrids growing among a weedier variety of the wildflower which tends to infest farmland. This represents a relatively small fraction of the 88 million wild bargeman’s cabbage plants estimated to grow along British riverbanks, but if the hybridization involved a GM gene that conferred a significant advantage on the weed, the hybrid could quickly spread to pose a superweed threat. An important outcome of the work is that it will allow scientists to assess what needs to be done to limit the spread of genes and pollen from GM crops. One possibility is to make the male plants sterile so they do not produce pollen.

“If we know how many hybrids to expect then we can test methods that people put forward hoping to prevent hybrid formation. In order to prevent hybrid formation you need to know how many to expect in the first place,” Dr. Wilkinson said.

“One of the main reasons for doing the work is that this sort of data represents a starting point for us to do predictive modeling, to predict how particular different sorts of genes will behave across the country.

“It’s important to know how many hybrids to expect, to know how efficient it has to be to prevent hybrids. The key question is whether the gene that they contain is going to cause a change [to the countryside] or not,” he said.

Although the latest study stands in contrast to previous work attempting to predict gene flow between farm crops and wild flowers, Dr. Wilkinson said the findings were not totally surprising. “The level of hybrid formation is more or less in keeping with what we expected on a national level,” he said. “What’s surprised us slightly is the variability between the regions.”

Oct. 15 (AGR)— The Bush administration is proposing far-reaching changes to conservation policies that would allow hunters, circuses and the pet industry to kill, capture and import animals on the brink of extinction in other countries.

Giving Americans access to endangered animals, officials said, would feed the gigantic US demand for live animals, skins, parts and trophies, and generate profits that would allow poor nations to pay for conservation of the remaining animals and their habitat say backers of the plan.

Conservationists think the changes are a bad idea.

Many federally listed domestic endangered species in the US specifically became listed because of their economic value, and that collection posed a threat to the survival of the species. This case is constant with the worldwide endangered species situation.

Adam Roberts, a senior research associate at the nonprofit Animal Welfare Institute, an advocacy group for endangered species, called the proposed policy “a horribly dangerous precedent, a wrong-headed conservation policy propelled by the circus and zoo, trophy-hunting lobby in the United States and others who want to profit by the commercialization of live animals or dead ones.”

Killing or capturing even a few animals is hardly the best way to protect endangered species, conservationists say. Many charge that the policies cater to individuals and businesses that profit from animal exploitation.

The latest proposal involves an interpretation of the Endangered Species Act that deviates radically from the course followed by Republican and Democratic administrations since President Richard M. Nixon signed the act in 1973.

Congress passed the Endangered Species Act in 1973 to protect animals facing extinction in the wild.

The act currently prohibits the capture, import, sale and killing of endangered species without a permit from the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Those who request permits must demonstrate that their proposed activity would enhance the survival of the species in the wild and that the animals won’t be used primarily for commercial purposes.

The Endangered Species Act has largely kept zoos and circuses from buying endangered species to use in shows or for the purpose of caging them. It also protects endangered species from trophy hunters.

Animal welfare advocates question the logic of the new approach, saying that foreign countries and groups that stand to profit will be in charge of determining how many animals can be killed or captured. Advocates also warn that opening the door to legal trade will allow poaching to flourish.

Under the proposed change, money spent by US zoos and circuses to import the endangered animals could be used support conservation projects abroad, the agency said.

“As soon as you place a financial price on the head of wild animals, the incentive is to kill the animal or capture them,” Roberts said. “The minute people find out they can have an easier time killing, shipping and profiting from wildlife, they will do so.”

History has proved this case repeatedly. In David Quammen’s landmark book on the topic of endangered species, Song of the Dodo, a lengthy account of how bounty systems on the Tasmanian Wolf, decreed by the Van Diemen’s Land Company, lead to that species’ extinction at the hands of hunters, with the last of this species dying in a zoo in 1936.

In the United States the story of the once abundant passenger pigeon illustrates the damage commercial hunting can have on species population. The pigeon is extinct now, despite having been the most numerous bird in North America.

Foreign trade groups and governments have tried for years — mostly in vain — to convince the United States that animals are no longer in limited supply, or that capturing or killing fixed numbers would not drive a species to extinction.

That could change after Oct. 17, the end of the public comment period on one proposed change, which specifically includes:

* Morelet’s crocodile, an endangered freshwater crocodile found in Mexico, Guatemala and Belize. Its skin is prized by U.S. leather importers.

* The endangered Asian elephant of India and Southeast Asia. The declining population in U.S. breeding programs “has raised a significant demand among the [U.S.] zoo and circus community,” the proposal said.

* The Asian bonytongue, a valuable aquarium fish, found in Indonesia, Thailand and Malaysia.

* The straight-horned markhor, an endangered wild goat in Pakistan distinguished by corkscrew-shaped horns.

John R. Monson, a New Hampshire trophy hunter and former chairman of that state’s Fish and Game Commission, said the program would help preserve rare animals. In 1999, Monson applied for a permit to shoot and import a straight-horned markhor. He was turned down.

Monson said the money he has spent hunting trophies — including a leopard from Namibia and a bontebok antelope from South Africa — has funded conservation programs.

Monson is president-elect of Safari Club International, a national hunting advocacy group. He agreed to an interview only in his personal capacity.

Safari Club International gave $274,000 to candidates during the 2000 election cycle, 86 percent of it to Republicans. It also spent $5,445 printing bumper stickers for the Bush presidential campaign. Monson has made a variety of contributions himself, including $1,000 to the Bush for President campaign.

“Eco-tourism” activities — such as safaris and whale-watching trips — generate more income than would trophy-hunting and whale killing, said Roberts.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service is taking public comments on its alarming plan through Friday. Citizens can send letters to Dr. Peter Thomas, 4401 N. Fairfax Dr., Room 700, Arlington, VA 22203, or e-mail their reactions to managementauthority@fws.gov.

Compiled by John Brinker

Oct. 11— The Bush administration has delivered the second half of a one-two punch against rules the Clinton administration put into effect to rein in environmental damage by hardrock mines in the West. On Oct. 10, the Interior Department overturned a policy that had strictly limited the amount of public land that can be used for dumping mining waste, which federal reports say is the largest volume of toxic material unleashed annually in this country.

At issue is the interpretation of the 1872 General Mining Law. The law allows for five-acre “mill sites” for activities “ancillary” to mining standard 20-acre claims, which was adequate for handling the material extracted from tunnel mines.

Starting in the late 1970s, mining companies expanded their operations to take advantage of new techniques, such as cyanide leaching, that make mining economical even when it takes several tons of ore to yield an ounce of gold. But open-pit mining requires much more space for processing the ore and for dumping the leftover rock. Consequently, mining companies were allowed unlimited amounts of public land next to their mines for waste dumping.

Concerned that government regulators were failing to restrict the size of mining sites, John Leshy, the Interior Department’s solicitor in the Clinton administration, issued an opinion in 1997 stressing that only one five-acre mill site should be allowed for every 20-acre mineral claim.

Bush administration officials, who insist mining can be done without hurting the environment, said they had to do something because investment and employment in Western mines has declined precipitously since Leshy’s ruling. “It created an atmosphere of uncertainty, and when you are making investments of hundreds of millions of dollars, uncertainty is not something you want to face,” Assistant Interior Secretary Rebecca Watson said. “We anticipate we will now see more development and exploration for mining.”

The overturning of waste-dumping limits is the Bush administration’s second major attack on Clinton-era changes in mining regulations. In October 2001, Secretary of the Interior Gail Norton issued rules overturning a package of regulations adopted late in the Clinton administration. Environmentalists characterized those as a giveaway to the mining industry because Norton relinquished her department’s ability to reject permits for mines considered likely to cause “substantial irreparable harm” by, for example, polluting underground water.

Mining industry advocates said the Leshy interpretation of the 1872 mining law and Clinton-era rules were simply attempts to keep new mines from opening in this country.

While supporters of the Bush administration make their arguments in terms of economic indicators, opponents couch their arguments in other terms. Steve D’Esposito, who represents the environmental group Mineral Policy Center, called the decision an “open invitation to dump massive quantities of toxic mining waste on unlimited amounts of our public lands. It puts clean water and community health at increased risk.”

Sources: Associated Press, Los Angeles Times, Seattle Post-Intelligencer