Genetically Modified Papaya Found In Kanchanaburi: Chula Researcher

[webfact]

Genetically modified papaya found in Kanchanaburi: Chula researcher

Pongphon Sarnsamak

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Hawaiian genetically modified papayas have been found at a farmer's plantation in Kanchanaburi province, a study revealed yesterday.

Piyasak Chaumpluk, from Chulalongkorn University's Department of Botany, who conducted the study, said the papaya in Kanchanaburi would be sent to a local fresh market, a supermarket in a department store and for export to other countries.

He presented his findings to a seminar entitled "2012 Food Security Assembly" organised by BioThai Foundation, the Sustainable Agriculture Foundation, and Alternative Agriculture Network.

Piyasak collected 319 samples of plants that may be genetically modified (GMO). Of this number, some 27 samples were cotton, 74 samples were papaya, 108 samples were rice, 105 samples were maize. The rest were chilli, tomato, and yellow bean.

According to his laboratory study, 29 samples of Hawaiian papaya in Kanchanaburi were found to the tainted with GMO and nine samples of cotton were also contaminated with GMO in Kanchanaburi and Sukhothai provinces.

Three years ago, Piyasak had found GMO contamination in maize for animal feed and cotton.

He said the GMO contamination at the plantation in Kanchanaburi might be accidental.

"Of course, the finding of GMO contamination in plants will affect the country's image and I don't want to blame the farmer for being the cause of contamination at their plantation. I think they unintentionally did it," he said.

"The GMO contaminated plants will spread to other areas," he added.

Piyasak said he had sent his report to the Department of Agriculture and asked it to strictly control GMO contamination in crop production but he had had no response from the state agency.

To date, GMO crops are not allowed in Thailand. Previously, a field trial of GMO papaya in Khon Kaen province was destroyed by a group of environmental activists after they found large-scale contamination of a neighbouring papaya farm, which resulted from field trials.

Meanwhile, a state agency had complained that experiments with genetically modified organisms were a harmful activity under Article 67 (2) of the Constitution. But this was opposed by some biotechnological experts and academics, who said many studies over the past 10 years in the US, Canada, Japan and China showed that GMO products did not cause any impact on humans and animals.

Piyasak said growing crops with GMOs should be listed as a harmful activity because they would affect human health and the environment.

"If they [biotechnological experts] think that GMOs are good and will not affect to human health, why are they afraid of listing GMOs as a harmful activity?" he said.

"The government should make a clear decision on whether we will go with genetically modified crops or alternative agriculture. But now we have learnt that we cannot control the contamination," he said.

-- The Nation 2012-05-17

[GentlemanJim]

Are there any farmers there who can clarify the situation on GM foods. I have never really understood why genetic modification to a plant to encourage greater growth etc can be harmful to humans. Surely with population figures as they are we need crops that are more 'bountiful'. What is the issue with genetically modified crops? Isn't evolution just genetic modification? Sorry I don't understand this, maybe I need an hour with google.

[Yunla]

I don't think anyone understands the long-term ramifications & that is the 'fear of the unknown' that makes people cautious.

I've seen organic farmers who swear they would never use GM & they actually go on rallies against it, other farmers who are happy to use it. I don't think there's enough long-term research to know who is right. One concern I heard mentioned was the effect on butterflies & other insects that pollinate wildflowers & thus support other animals that eat those plants. Most of the other stuff is tabloid science and hysteria. I think with 7bn+ people on Earth and estimates at 50bn soon enough, humans will be eating GM & will also probably have to turn vegan at some point unless they own their own land for cattle. Impossible that we can provide organic unmod crops & beef etc. for 50bn people.

[Crushdepth]

"If they [biotechnological experts] think that GMOs are good and will not affect to human health, why are they afraid of listing GMOs as a harmful activity?"

I'll assume this was sloppy journalism rather than insanity on the part of the "expert".

It's *agriculture* that is pretty dam_n bad for the environment. If GMOs can help us grow more food using less land, resources and pesticides, then they might be a substantial net positive to the environment. The 'threat' to human health is 99.99% scaremongering by environmentalists who haven't thought it through or eaten at a noodle stall lately.

[lungmi]

I don't think anyone understands the long-term ramifications & that is the 'fear of the unknown' that makes people cautious.

I've seen organic farmers who swear they would never use GM & they actually go on rallies against it, other farmers who are happy to use it. I don't think there's enough long-term research to know who is right. One concern I heard mentioned was the effect on butterflies & other insects that pollinate wildflowers & thus support other animals that eat those plants. Most of the other stuff is tabloid science and hysteria. I think with 7bn+ people on Earth and estimates at 50bn soon enough, humans will be eating GM & will also probably have to turn vegan at some point unless they own their own land for cattle. Impossible that we can provide organic unmod crops & beef etc. for 50bn people.

Exactly, the long-term research is unsatisfactory. One astonishing side-effect of GM-tomatoes seems to create inefficience of some anti-biotics.

[Honkytowner]

The problem with GMO plants is that their pollen is carried on the wind and can fertilise heritage (traditional) crops, forever changing the genetic make-up of succeeding generations. This results in a diminution of the gene pool and a reduction in the number of varieties within the species. It has become a huge problem in Mexico, for example, where farmers report that it is now very difficult to reproduce heritage corn because of gene transference from GMO corn pollen.

An additional problem is that the seeds produced by some GMO crops is intentionally infertile, so that farmers have to keep buying new seed. This has led, notably in India, to a large number of bankruptcies and suicides among poor farmers. Thanks, Monsanto.

Thailand's ban on GMOs is a rare and courageous stance.

[Card]

I don't think anyone understands the long-term ramifications & that is the 'fear of the unknown' that makes people cautious.

I've seen organic farmers who swear they would never use GM & they actually go on rallies against it, other farmers who are happy to use it. I don't think there's enough long-term research to know who is right. One concern I heard mentioned was the effect on butterflies & other insects that pollinate wildflowers & thus support other animals that eat those plants. Most of the other stuff is tabloid science and hysteria. I think with 7bn+ people on Earth and estimates at 50bn soon enough, humans will be eating GM & will also probably have to turn vegan at some point unless they own their own land for cattle. Impossible that we can provide organic unmod crops & beef etc. for 50bn people.

Organic farmers are afraid of losing the precious premium on their produce - a premium unjustified, but nevertheless there.

[Card]

"If they [biotechnological experts] think that GMOs are good and will not affect to human health, why are they afraid of listing GMOs as a harmful activity?"

I'll assume this was sloppy journalism rather than insanity on the part of the "expert".

It's *agriculture* that is pretty dam_n bad for the environment. If GMOs can help us grow more food using less land, resources and pesticides, then they might be a substantial net positive to the environment. The 'threat' to human health is 99.99% scaremongering by environmentalists who haven't thought it through or eaten at a noodle stall lately.

You took the quote and words right out of my mouth.

[Card]

I don't think anyone understands the long-term ramifications & that is the 'fear of the unknown' that makes people cautious.

I've seen organic farmers who swear they would never use GM & they actually go on rallies against it, other farmers who are happy to use it. I don't think there's enough long-term research to know who is right. One concern I heard mentioned was the effect on butterflies & other insects that pollinate wildflowers & thus support other animals that eat those plants. Most of the other stuff is tabloid science and hysteria. I think with 7bn+ people on Earth and estimates at 50bn soon enough, humans will be eating GM & will also probably have to turn vegan at some point unless they own their own land for cattle. Impossible that we can provide organic unmod crops & beef etc. for 50bn people.

Exactly, the long-term research is unsatisfactory. One astonishing side-effect of GM-tomatoes seems to create inefficience of some anti-biotics.

This is complete nonesense. Antibiotic resistance to what and in what? Either put up or shut up.

[Card]

The problem with GMO plants is that their pollen is carried on the wind and can fertilise heritage (traditional) crops, forever changing the genetic make-up of succeeding generations. This results in a diminution of the gene pool and a reduction in the number of varieties within the species. It has become a huge problem in Mexico, for example, where farmers report that it is now very difficult to reproduce heritage corn because of gene transference from GMO corn pollen.

An additional problem is that the seeds produced by some GMO crops is intentionally infertile, so that farmers have to keep buying new seed. This has led, notably in India, to a large number of bankruptcies and suicides among poor farmers. Thanks, Monsanto.

Thailand's ban on GMOs is a rare and courageous stance.

Another load of rubbish. I suggest you do some research into the real cause of farmer suicide in India - GMOs are a peripheral issue - not the main cause, although have been portrayed as such by people who have other motives. Problems like this will not be solved by blaming it on the wrong causes.

As regards GM crops, hybrid seed which led to the green revolution in the '60s and subsequent saving of millions from starvation, also involved seeds that farmers had to buy repeatedly from seed companies. In fact it is pollen infertility created by genetic modification, that prevents cross-fertilization - the very thing that you complain about with GMOs.

And regarding traditional varieties, there are many seed banks that preserve traditional varieties, if indeed the supply has been affected.

[belg]

and i tought GMO was there to help to grow crops by making them less vulnerable to desease and have built in defences so less pesticide would be needed or less water or whatever suited the climate to make them grow and help the farmer obtain more $$$

[DGS1244]

'He said the GMO contamination at the plantation in Kanchanaburi might be accidental.'

All the way from the Hawaiian Islands ??

Trouble is without GMO the world will not be able to produce enough food, it is here to stay, we just have to make sure we can mange it.

[allan michaud]

I don't think anyone understands the long-term ramifications & that is the 'fear of the unknown' that makes people cautious.

I've seen organic farmers who swear they would never use GM & they actually go on rallies against it, other farmers who are happy to use it. I don't think there's enough long-term research to know who is right. One concern I heard mentioned was the effect on butterflies & other insects that pollinate wildflowers & thus support other animals that eat those plants. Most of the other stuff is tabloid science and hysteria. I think with 7bn+ people on Earth and estimates at 50bn soon enough, humans will be eating GM & will also probably have to turn vegan at some point unless they own their own land for cattle. Impossible that we can provide organic unmod crops & beef etc. for 50bn people.

Exactly, the long-term research is unsatisfactory. One astonishing side-effect of GM-tomatoes seems to create inefficience of some anti-biotics.

Also the experience with Roundup corn in India where yields plummeted and then they needed special fertilisers from the same company. A bee keeper expert I know said it is the pollinator issue that is most worrying. Too little know, screwing with nature has not been a good idea historically.

[SabaiBKK]

Since Monsanto is quite active in Thailand for years , i'm really not surprised.... hell just buy a thai advocado and try to make the core sprout? normally nothing is easier, well , in thailand its impossible, advocados are steriles. Thank you Monsanto .

[Mosha]

Funny, no one seems bothered by seedless grapes.

[tingtong]

I don't think anyone understands the long-term ramifications & that is the 'fear of the unknown' that makes people cautious.

I've seen organic farmers who swear they would never use GM & they actually go on rallies against it, other farmers who are happy to use it. I don't think there's enough long-term research to know who is right. One concern I heard mentioned was the effect on butterflies & other insects that pollinate wildflowers & thus support other animals that eat those plants. Most of the other stuff is tabloid science and hysteria. I think with 7bn+ people on Earth and estimates at 50bn soon enough, humans will be eating GM & will also probably have to turn vegan at some point unless they own their own land for cattle. Impossible that we can provide organic unmod crops & beef etc. for 50bn people.

Exactly, the long-term research is unsatisfactory. One astonishing side-effect of GM-tomatoes seems to create inefficience of some anti-biotics.

At least having GM food means less needs to starve before die? The later is inevitable for all anyway, the prior can be improved...

[inquisitive]

'He said the GMO contamination at the plantation in Kanchanaburi might be accidental.'

All the way from the Hawaiian Islands ??

Trouble is without GMO the world will not be able to produce enough food, it is here to stay, we just have to make sure we can mange it.

I am not sure exactly where I stand on the GMO issue. Certainly there are strong and valid arguments on both sides of the question. At the same time, there is one overriding point that I think should also come up whenever we discuss GMO as the answer to feeding a population that is multiplying like a virus. In many animal populations there is a regular and predictable cycle of growth and decline. Each of those species have cycles of different, predictable durations. It was long ago discovered that the cycle is almost completely controlled by the food supply. This observation was what led to the discovery of one of the basic laws of life: Population of a species is largely determined by available food. The population inevitably grows to just slightly larger than the existing food supply, and then it dies back - usually relieving the pressure on their food supply, and allowing the cycle to start all over again. Whenever food availability in increased, the inevitable result is increased population. Think about that. In nature, whenever food availability is increased, the population grows. That's just the way it is.

To put this in terms of humans, the solution to having too many humans for the existing food supply cannot simply be to increase the amount of food. It won't work. It has never worked. It doesn't work for rabbits, and it won't work for humans. Keeping the booming growth rate of babies functioning by serving up more food is absolutely, totally, and indisputably self-defeating. There MUST be more to the solution than bigger crops.

I am not against feeding everyone - quite the opposite. But I do realize that it is just as impossible to fix the current food shortage with food alone as it is to eliminate poverty with money. It is like the political campaign promise that if you vote for me, no one will be a servant any more and instead we will all HAVE servants. Or an education system that only produces students with above average IQs.

So with that in mind, I wonder if it is worth significant risks using GM crops or any other only partly understood technique with potential devastating consequences simply to produce more food per acre. Until we find a way to stop the monstor that is population growth, we'd be taking an enormous and potentially unstoppable risk for a potential gain that we know will only be temporary.

Think about it. We all want to stop starvation, but is the quick fix of GMO the way to accomplish this. We know for sure that it won't work by itself, so unless we've got the whole plan working - including population control - then would it be worth taking a chance of wiping out the existing food supply with only partly understood genetic modifications? Hey, fire is easy to start and can be useful and even life-saving. But would anyone want to start a fire without any idea of whether it can be contained or controlled?

[sparebox2]

Thailand should be FMO free. Thai should be ashamed of themselves and burn down all GMO fields.

[thaihome]

The problem with GMO plants is that their pollen is carried on the wind and can fertilise heritage (traditional) crops, forever changing the genetic make-up of succeeding generations. This results in a diminution of the gene pool and a reduction in the number of varieties within the species. It has become a huge problem in Mexico, for example, where farmers report that it is now very difficult to reproduce heritage corn because of gene transference from GMO corn pollen.

An additional problem is that the seeds produced by some GMO crops is intentionally infertile, so that farmers have to keep buying new seed. This has led, notably in India, to a large number of bankruptcies and suicides among poor farmers. Thanks, Monsanto.

Thailand's ban on GMOs is a rare and courageous stance.

Aren't your two statements mutually exclusive? How can pollen from GMO plants be "changing the genetic make-up of succeeding generations" if the "GMO crops is intentionally infertile"?

Could it be you are just repeating senseless propaganda you read somewhere and never bothered to analysis?

TH

Here is the deal on the Hawaiian papaya:

Papayas

Papayas are grown in many tropical countries. But papaya cultivation is being threatened by Papaya Ringspot-Virus, a disease that is sharply lowering yields.

Since 1998, genetically modified papayas have been cultivated in Hawaii, USA. They are resistant to a domestic viral disease. In the EU, genetically modified papayas are not approved.

In the late 1980s, the University of Hawaii began developing a papaya cultivar resistant to Papaya Ringspot Virus. To do this, certain viral genes encoding capsid proteins were transferred to the papaya genome. These viral capsid proteins elicit something similar to an "immune response" from the papaya plant. These new, genetically modified papaya plants are no longer susceptible to infection, allowing farmers to cultivate the fruit even when the virus is widespread.

The first virus resistant papayas were commercially grown in Hawaii in 1999. Transgenic papayas now cover about one thousand hectares, or three quarters of the total Hawaiian papaya crop.

Genetically modified papayas are approved for consumption both in the US and in Canada. Several Asian countries are currently developing transgenic papaya varieties resistant to local viral strains.

At this point, GM papayas are not approved in the EU. Until now, no application for approval has been submitted. Therefore, importing and marketing genetically modified papayas is not permitted in the EU.

[hellodolly]

"If they [biotechnological experts] think that GMOs are good and will not affect to human health, why are they afraid of listing GMOs as a harmful activity?"

I'll assume this was sloppy journalism rather than insanity on the part of the "expert".

It's *agriculture* that is pretty dam_n bad for the environment. If GMOs can help us grow more food using less land, resources and pesticides, then they might be a substantial net positive to the environment. The 'threat' to human health is 99.99% scaremongering by environmentalists who haven't thought it through or eaten at a noodle stall lately.

You beat me to it. The whole article was just a joke.

With the population being what it is and people the world over starving it is obvious that some thing has to be done.

The most obvious thing is the elephant standing in the middle of the room that no one can see.

Birth control. Over population is rampant. But it is easier to ignore that and attack processes that are aimed at feeding them. There by continuing the starvation of many.

Edited May 17, 2012 by hellodolly

[hellodolly]

The problem with GMO plants is that their pollen is carried on the wind and can fertilise heritage (traditional) crops, forever changing the genetic make-up of succeeding generations. This results in a diminution of the gene pool and a reduction in the number of varieties within the species. It has become a huge problem in Mexico, for example, where farmers report that it is now very difficult to reproduce heritage corn because of gene transference from GMO corn pollen.

An additional problem is that the seeds produced by some GMO crops is intentionally infertile, so that farmers have to keep buying new seed. This has led, notably in India, to a large number of bankruptcies and suicides among poor farmers. Thanks, Monsanto.

Thailand's ban on GMOs is a rare and courageous stance.

Another load of rubbish. I suggest you do some research into the real cause of farmer suicide in India - GMOs are a peripheral issue - not the main cause, although have been portrayed as such by people who have other motives. Problems like this will not be solved by blaming it on the wrong causes.

As regards GM crops, hybrid seed which led to the green revolution in the '60s and subsequent saving of millions from starvation, also involved seeds that farmers had to buy repeatedly from seed companies. In fact it is pollen infertility created by genetic modification, that prevents cross-fertilization - the very thing that you complain about with GMOs.

And regarding traditional varieties, there are many seed banks that preserve traditional varieties, if indeed the supply has been affected.

Well after reading both of your opinions it would seem to me that the one has done some research on the Topic and you have not.

[mic6ard]

We have been performing genetic modification to plants and animal ever since we've began to farm them. Think about this.

We've been selecting higher yield, tougher plants, better products, but then again we've been using what mother nature has provide us.

[mic6ard]

" "If they [biotechnological experts] think that GMOs are good and will not affect to human health, why are they afraid of listing GMOs as a harmful activity?" he said. "from the OP

WHY should they list it as harmful then if it doesn't affect human health adversely!!!

Maybe the scientists aren't afraid to list it, but that it doesn't belong on the list in the first place????

IDIOTS

[Thai at Heart]

We have been performing genetic modification to plants and animal ever since we've began to farm them. Think about this.

We've been selecting higher yield, tougher plants, better products, but then again we've been using what mother nature has provide us.

You are confusing selection with gene manipulation. Whales cannot mate with cats, or tomatoes with cows. I think you misunderstand that they are splicing specific genes from organisms that would never be part of the original makeup of the host plant to provide some kind of beneficial resistance or tolerance for their environment. There was an experiment to place genes from jellyfish into crops years ago, that made them glow in the dark under attack from pests so that the farmer could tell when to apply pesticide.

All very beneficial, but whilst there would be probably no harmful results in the short run, what on earth "could" the result be of doing this? The US has ridden the benefits from GM corn to increase yields mainly to produce not food by ethanol for fuel. I understand the world needs more food, but I understand why there is a natural hesitancy from people about GMO. It has huge benefits, but there have already been stories of reported massive drop in yields in certain crops one the GM seeds have infiltrated the native crops. This is (one would hope) an accidental occurrence, but I see nothing wrong with any country choosing not to participate.

This really does have the potential for a completely unknown and unintended consequence in the long run.

[bumpkin]

The whole topic of GMOs has been subject to inaccurate and subjective reporting since the first GM animal development was disclosed in 1987 and the first commercially available GM food plant (a tomato) was announced ten years later. Many of the counter arguments are spurious, and some of the supporting statements must await the test of time. It is an area of science that touches the emotive sentiments of a largly, science-ignorant population. The fact that there are "scientists" on both sides of the debate, in itself is not surprising and is proof of nothing. This diversity of opinion has been evident in nearly every scientific discovery and development throughout history.

[anterian]

Given the choice between a plant genetically modified for resistance to disease and a plant sprayed with pesticides, I will prefer the GM plant.

I think many people are worried about GM because they believe the old saying, "You are what you eat".

I have eaten tomatoes all my life, I don't look like one, my skin is not bright red.

[cloudhopper]

This really does have the potential for a completely unknown and unintended consequence in the long run.

Of course, but no more nor less than any other random mating or mutation of genes, be it via natural or artificial means.

[Johpa]

This really does have the potential for a completely unknown and unintended consequence in the long run.

Of course, but no more nor less than any other random mating or mutation of genes, be it via natural or artificial means.

It is one thing to select traits that originate from within a specie's natural gene pool and quite something else to insert new genes from outside the existing gene pool. I just don't get why this crucial difference remains so hard for so many to understand. But I susoect it is the same genetic flaw that prevents people from understanding the difference between weather and climate.

[cloudhopper]

It is one thing to select traits that originate from within a specie's natural gene pool and quite something else to insert new genes from outside the existing gene pool. I just don't get why this crucial difference remains so hard for so many to understand. But I susoect it is the same genetic flaw that prevents people from understanding the difference between weather and climate.

I understand the difference but due to a genetic flaw must dispute that genetic changes of this nature are no more "crucial" than any other. Crucial to what exactly? Every change to a gene has an equally poor chance of having any desired or undesired effect.

[Thai at Heart]

This really does have the potential for a completely unknown and unintended consequence in the long run.

Of course, but no more nor less than any other random mating or mutation of genes, be it via natural or artificial means.

It is one thing to select traits that originate from within a specie's natural gene pool and quite something else to insert new genes from outside the existing gene pool. I just don't get why this crucial difference remains so hard for so many to understand. But I susoect it is the same genetic flaw that prevents people from understanding the difference between weather and climate.

Indeed it is nowhere as simple as man selecting the healthiest plants from his field to collect the strongest seed. It is about importing very selected genetic characteristics from other completely different species that would never be able to cross into the host plant.

I myself am still undecided and would prefer that the world was still at the r&d level because what we are talking about here is forcing genetic mutation that would ordinarily be impossible or take 1000s of generations. The problem is that the r&d has been largely undertaken by private enterprise so it must see are turn. Messing with the worlds food supply is a massive decision.

The weather and climate analogy is a good one, and we all know how the data for that became discredited so easily. Decisions like this have to stand up to the most rigorous peer review, and since when would anyone say that trusting a private company 100% on its research when it has a vested interest in selling you the result, which may not show any problems in the real world for many years?

The other issue is that to turn back GMO is extremely difficult if not impossible,because the seeds spread around so quickly an entire crop population can be changed in 4 or 5 generations through pollination. If you like your rice spliced with genes from parsnips, good luck