GMO: The greatest threat to mankind
Jan 20, 2013 16:40:17 GMT -5
Post by PrisonerOfHope on Jan 20, 2013 16:40:17 GMT -5
GMO: THE GREATEST THREAT TO MANKIND
by Melissa Akira Aquino Ramírez on Friday, 18 January 2013 at 14:38 ·
Foreword:
We have been repeatedly told that genetically engineered (GE) crops will save the world by increasing yields and producing more food. They will save the world by controlling pests and weeds. They will save the world by reducing chemical use in agriculture. They will save the world with GE drought tolerant seeds and other seed traits that will provide resilience in times of climate change. However, all of these claims have been established as false over years of experience all across the world. GMO is threatening the very basis of our freedom to know what we eat and to choose what we eat. Our biodiversity and our seed freedom are in peril. Our food freedom, food democracy and food sovereignty are at STAKE. This article brings together evidence from the ground of Monsanto’sand the industry’s false promises and failed technology.
I. FAILURE TO YIELD
Contrary to the claim of feeding the world, genetic engineering has not increased the yield of a single crop. Navdanya’s research in India has shown that contrary to Monsanto’s claim of Bt cotton yield of 1500 kg per acre, the reality is that the yield is an average of 400-500 kg per acre. Although Monsanto’s Indian advertising campaign reports a 50 percent increase in yields for its Bollgard cotton, a survey conducted by the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology found that the yields in all trial plots were lower than what the company promised.
Bollgard’s failure to deliver higher yields has been reported all over the world. The Mississippi Seed Arbitration Council ruled thatin 1997, Monsanto’s Roundup Ready cotton failed to perform as advertised, recommending payments of nearly $2 million to three cotton farmers who suffered severe crop losses.
A report by the Union of Concerned Scientists in the U.S., has established that genetic engineering has not contributed to yield increases in any crop. According to this report, increases in crop yields in the U.S. are due to yield characteristics of conventional crops, not genetic engineering.
Australian research shows that conventional crops out perform GE crops.
Yield Comparison of GE Canola Trials in Australia
Despite Monsanto adding the Roundup Ready gene to ‘elite varieties’, the best Australian trials of Roundup Ready Canola yielded only 1.055 t/ha, at least 16 percent below the national average of 1.23 t/ha www.non-gm-farmers.com/documents/GM Canola report-full.pdf
While increased food productivity is the argument used to promote genetic engineering, when the issue of potential economic impacts on farmers is brought up, the biotechnology industry it self argues that genetic engineering does not lead to increased productivity.
Robert Shapiro, CEO of Monsanto, referring to Posilac (Monsanto’s bovine growth hormone) in Business Ethics, said on the one hand that:
“There is need for agricultural productivity, including dairy productivity, to double if we want to feed all the people who will be joining us, so I think this is unequivocally a good product.”
On the other hand, when asked about the product’s economic impact on farmers, he said that it would “play arelatively small role in the process of increasing dairy productivity.”
In twenty years of commercialization of GE crops, only two traits have been developed on a significant scale: herbicide tolerance, and insect resistance (Bt crops).
II. FAILED TECHNOLOGY: GE CROPS DO NOT CONTROL PESTS AND WEEDS, THEY CREATE SUPER PESTS AND SUPER WEEDS
Herbicide tolerant (Roundup Ready) crops were supposed to control weeds and Bt crops were intended to control pests. Instead of controlling weeds and pests, GE crops have led to the emergence of super weeds and super pests. In the U.S., Round Up Ready crops have produced weeds resistant to Round Up.
Approximately 15 million acres are now overtaken by Roundup resistant “superweeds”, and, in an attempt to stop the spread of these weeds, Monsanto has started offering farmers a “rebate” of up to $6 per acre for purchasing and using other, more lethal herbicides. These rebates offset approximately 25 to 35 percent of cost of purchasing the other herbicides. [blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2010/10/19/monsanto-paying-farmers-to-increase-herbicide-use/]
In India, Bt cotton sold under the trade name “Bollgard” was supposed to control the Bollworm pest. Today, the Bollworm has become resistant to Bt cotton and now Monsanto is selling Bollgard II with two additional toxic genes in it. New pests have emerged and farmers are using more pesticides.
Bt crops: A Recipe for Super Pests
Bt is a naturally occurring organism Bacillus thuringiensis which produces a toxin. Corporations are now adding genes for Bt toxins to a wide array of crops to enable the plants to produce their own insecticide.
Monsanto sells its Bt potato as ‘Nature Mark’ in Canada and describes it as a plant using “sunshine, air and soil nutrients to make a biodegradable protein that affects just one specific insect pest, and only those individual insects that actually take a bite of the plants.”
The camouflaged description of a transgenic crop hides many of the ecological impacts of genetically engineered crops. The illusion of sustainability is manufactured through the following distortions.
>>1. The Bt Plant does not merely use ‘sunshine, air,and soil nutrients’. Bt crops are transgenic and have a gene from a bacterium called bacillus thuringiensis (bt) which produces the Bt toxin.In addition it has antibiotic resistance marker genes and genes from viruses as promoters.
>>2. The so called ‘biodegradable protein’ is actuallya toxin which the gene continuously produces in the plant. This protein has been found in the blood of pregnant women and their fetuses.
>>3. Insect pests like the cotton bollworm which destroy cotton can actually evolve resistance because of continuous release of the toxin and hence become ‘super pest'
>>4. The Bt crop does not affect ‘just one specific pest’. Beneficial insects like bees and ladybirds can be seriously affected. A Cornell studys howed that the Bt toxin affected the Monarch butterfly.
The widespread use of Bt containing crops could accelerate the development of insect pest resistance to Bt which is used for organic pest control. Already eight species of insects have developed resistance to Bt toxins, either in the field or laboratory, including the diamond back moth, Indian meal moth, tobacco budworm, Colorado potato beetle, and two species of mosquitoes.
A new Super Pest which has become Resistant to GM Corn
Herbicide Resistant Crops: A Recipe for Superweeds
Herbicide resistant crops such as Roundup Ready cotton can create the risk of herbicide resistant “superweeds” by transferring the herbicide resistance to weeds. Monsanto has confirmed that a notorious Australian weed, rye grass, has developed tolerance to its herbicide Roundup, thus rendering genetic engineering of herbicide resistant crops a useless strategy.
In 1994, research scientists in Denmark reported strong evidence that an oil seed rape plant genetically engineered to be herbicide tolerant transmitted its transgene to a weedy natural relative, Brassica campestris ssp. Campestris. This transfer can become established in the plant in just two generations.
Current surveys indicate that almost 20 percent of U.S producers have found glyphosate resistant (Roundup Resistant) weeds on their farms. (farmindustrynews.com/crop-protection/diversificationprevents-weed-resistance-glyphosate)
Referring to Round Up Resistant weeds, Andrew Wargo III, the President of the Arkansas Association of Conservation Districts said:
“It is the single largest threat to production agriculture that we have ever seen”. (William Neuman &Andrew Pollack, Farmers Cope with Round-Up Resistance Weeds, New York Times, 4th May 2010)
There are now ten resistant species in at least 22 states infesting millions of acres, predominantly soybeans, cotton, and corn. Roundup Resistant weeds include pig weed, rag weed, and horse weed. Today, Roundup Ready crops account for 90 percent of soybeans and 70 percent of corn and cotton grown in the US.
As a result of this weed resistance, farmers are being forced to use more herbicides to combat weeds. As Bill Freese of the Center for Food Safety in Washington, D.C., says
“The biotech industry is taking us into a more pesticide dependent agriculture, and we need to be going in the opposite direction.” The problem of “superweeds” is so severe that U.S Congress organized a hearing on it titled “Are Superweeds on Outgrowth of USDA Biotech Policy”.
(westernfarmpress.com/management/super-weedsput-usda-hotseat)
When introduced to regions such as China,Taiwan, Japan, Korea and former USSR where wild relatives of soy are found, Monsanto’s Roundup Ready Soya bean could transfer the herbicide resistant genes to wild relatives leading to new weed problems.
The native biodiversity richness of the Third World thus increases the environmental risks of introduced genetically modified species.
The genetic engineering miracle is quite clearly faltering in farmers’ fields. Yet the information on the hazards and risks does not accompany the sales promotion of genetically engineered crops. Nor does the false promise of the biotech miracle inform farmers that the genetic engineering era of farming also requires ‘high-tech slavery’ for farmers.
III. False Promises
Reduced Use of Chemicals
Despite claims that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) will lower the levels of chemicals (pesticides and herbicides) used, this has not been the case. This is of great concern both because of the negative impacts of these chemicals on ecosystems and humans, and because there is the danger that increased chemical use will cause pests and weeds to develop resistance, requiring even more chemicals in order to manage them.
>>India
A survey in Vidharbha showed that pesticide use has increased 13-fold there since Bt cotton was introduced.
A study recently published in the Review of Agrarian Studies also showed a higher expenditure on chemical pesticides for Bt cotton than for other varieties for small farmers. (Are there Benefits from the Cultivation of Bt cotton? Review of Agrarian Studies Vol 1(1) January- June 2011. Madhura Swaminathan* and Vikas Rawal)
Non-target pest populations in Bt cotton fields have exploded, which will likely erode and counteract any decrease in pesticide use (Glenn Davis Stone. Field versus Farm in Warangal: Bt cotton, Higher Yields, and Larger Questions. World Development, 2011; 39 (3): 387)
>>In China, where Bt cotton is widely planted:
Populations of mirid bugs, pests that previously posed only a minor problem, have increased 12-fold since 1997. A 2008 study in the International Journal of Biotechnology found that any financial benefits of planting Bt cotton had been eroded by the increasing use of pesticides needed to combat non-target pests. (“Benefits of Bt cotton elude farmers in China” GM Watch, www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/13089).
>>In the US, due mainly to the widespread use of Roundup Ready seeds:
Herbicide use increased 15 percent (318 million additional pounds) from 1994 to 2005—an average increase of ¼ pound per each acre planted with GM seed—according to a 2009 report published by the Organic Center. (www.organic-center.org/science.pest.php?action=view&report_id=159).
The same report found that in 2008, GM crops required 26 percent more pounds of pesticides per acre than acres planted with conventional varieties, and projects that this trend will continue due the spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds. (www.organic-center.org/science.pest.php?action=view&report_id=159).
Moreover, the rise of glyphosate (the herbicide in Roundup Up)- resistant weeds has made it necessary to combat these weeds by employing other, often more toxic herbicides. This trend is confirmed by 2010 USDA pesticide data, which shows sky rocketing glyphosate use accompanied by constant or increasing rates of use for other, more toxic, herbicides. (Despite Industry Claims, Herbicide Use Fails to Decline with GM Crops.” GM Watch. www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/13089)
Moreover, the introduction of Bt corn in the US has had no impact on insecticide use, and while Bt cotton is associated with a decrease in insecticide use in some areas, insecticide applications in Alabama, where Bt cotton is planted widely, doubled between 1997 and 2000. (Benbrook, Charles. “Do GM Crops Mean Less Pesticide Use?” Pesticide Outlook, October 2001. www.biotech-info.net/benbrook_outlook.pdf).
>>In Argentina, after the introduction of Roundup Ready soya in 1999:
Overall glyphosate use more than tripled by 2005. A 2001 report found that Roundup Ready soya growers in Argentina used more than twice as much herbicide as conventional soya growers. (“Who Benefits from GM Crops? Feed the Biotech Giants, Not the World’s Poor.” Friends of the Earth International, February 2009). (www.foei.org/en/resources/publications/pdfs/2009/gmcrops2009exec.pdf)
In 2007, a glyphosate-resistant version of Johnsongrass (considered one of the worst and most difficult weeds in the world) was reported on more than 120,000 hectares of prime agricultural land - a consequence of the increase in glyphosate use. (www.foei.org/en/resources/publications/pdfs/2009/gmcrops2009exec.pdf)
As a result, it was recommended that farmers use a mix of herbicides other than glyphosate (often more toxic) to combat the resistant weeds, and it is estimated that an additional 25 liters of herbicides will be needed each year to control the resistant weeds.
>>In Brazil, which has been the worlds’ largest consumer of pesticides since 2008:
(“Use of Pesticides in Brazil continues to Grow.” GM Watch, April 18 2011. www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/13072-use-of-pesticides-inbrazil-continues-to-grow).
GE crops became legally available in 2005, and now make up 45 percent of all row crops planted in Brazil — a percentage that is only expected to increase. (Brazilian Farmers are Rapidly Adopting Genetically Modified Crops.” Soybean and Corn Advisor, March 10, 2010. www.soybeansandcorn.com/news/Mar10_10-Brazilian-Farmers-Are-Rapidly-Adopting-Gentically-Modified-Crops)
Soy area has increased 71 percent, but herbicide use has increased 95 percent. (“GM Agriculture: Promises or Problems for farming in South Africa?” (BioWatch South Africa, May 16 2011. www.sacau.org/hosting/sacau/SacauWeb.nsf/SACAU 2011_Biowatch- GMagriculture Promises or problems for farming in South Africa.pdf )
Of 18 herbicide-resistant weed species reported, five are glyphosate-resistant. (“Use of Pesticides in Brazil continues to Grow.” GM Watch, April 18 2011. www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/13072-use-of-pesticidesin-brazil-continues-to-grow)
In 2009, total herbicide active ingredient use was 18.7 percent higher for GE crops than conventional (“GM Crops: Global socioeconomic and environmental impacts 1996-2009” Graham Brookes and Peter Barfoot. PG Economics Ltd. UK. 2011).
Climate Resilience
Climate change is often used as a reason to claim that we need GM crops. (Gray L. GM foods “could feed growing population during climate change”. The Telegraph (UK). 22 January 2009. tgr.ph/nnywRL)
But the evidence suggests that the solutions to climate change do not lie in GM. This is because tolerance to extreme weather conditions such as drought and flooding – and resistance to the pests and diseases that often accompany them – are complex traits that cannot be delivered through GM.
Where a GM crop is claimed to possess such complex traits, they have generally been achieved through conventional breeding, not GM. Simple GM traits such as pest resistance or herbicide tolerance are added to the conventionally bred crop so as to put the biotech company’s “brand” on it after the complex trait is developed through conventional breeding.
While the resulting crop is often claimed as a GM success, this is untrue. It is a success of conventional breeding, with added GM traits. The GM traits do not contribute to the agronomic performance of the crop but make the crop the property of a biotech company and (in the case of herbicide tolerance) keep farmers dependent on chemical inputs sold by the same company.
Chemically-based agriculture is a major contributor to climate change. GM proponents claim that GM crops can help reverse this trend by enabling the adoption of no-till farming, which avoids ploughing and relies on herbicide applications to control weeds.
On the basis of this argument, Monsanto is lobbying for GM Roundup Ready crop cultivation to be made eligible for carbon credits under the United Nations’ Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). The CDM aims to promote technologies that mitigate climate change. Industrialized countries and companies in the Global North can continue to emit the same amount of greenhouse gases and still meet their required emissions reductions by funding CDM projects, most of which are in the Global South.
Industry claims of improved carbon sequestration for GM Roundup Ready crops with no-till are not supported by research. A comprehensive review of the scientific literature found that no-till fields sequester no more carbon than ploughed fields when carbon sequestration at soil depths greater than 30 cm is taken into account. Studies claiming to find carbon sequestration benefits from no-till only measure carbon sequestration down to a depth of about 30cm and so do not give an accurate picture.
Health Hazards
Among the false claims made by Monsanto and the Biotechnology industry is that GM foods are safe. However, there are enough independent studies to show that GE foods can cause health damage.
For example, Dr. Arpad Pusztai’s research has shown that rats fed with GM potatoes had enlarged pancreases, their brains had shrunk, and their immunity had been damaged. Dr.Eric Seralini’s research demonstrated that organ damage can occur.
Experiment by Irina Ermakova: influence of GM-soy (Roundup Ready) on same age rats : control group on left, GM-soy on right with pups small sizes and weights
Independent studies on human cells and experimental animals have shown that glyphosate and Roundup have serious toxic effects, in many cases at low levels that could be found in the environment or as residues in food or feed. The added ingredients (adjuvants) in Roundup are themselves toxic and increase the toxicity of glyphosate by enabling it to penetrate human and animal cells more easily. Findings include:
●Glyphosate and Roundup caused malformations in frog and chicken embryos.
●Roundup caused skeletal malformations in rat foetuses.
●Industry’s own studies conducted for regulatory purposes as long ago as the 1980s show that glyphosate caused birth defects in rats and rabbits. These effects were seen not only at high, maternally toxic doses, but also GMO at lower doses. Interestingly, these effects were discounted by regulators, who approved glyphosate for use in food production.
●Roundup caused liver and kidney toxicity in fish at sublethal doses. Effects in the liver included haemorrhage and necrosis (death of cells and living tissue).
●Roundup caused total cell death in human cells within 24 hours at concentrations far below those used in agriculture and corresponding to levels of residues found in food and feed.
●Roundup caused death of human cells and programmed cell death at a concentration of 50 parts per million, far below agricultural dilutions.
●Roundup was a potent endocrine disruptor at levels up to 800 times lower than residue levels allowed in food and feed. It was toxic to human cells and caused DNA damage at doses far below those used in agriculture.
●Glyphosate was toxic to human placental cells and is an endocrine disruptor in concentrations lower than those found with agricultural use. Roundup adjuvants amplified glyphosate’s toxicity by enabling it to penetrate cells more easily and to bioaccumulate in cells.
●Glyphosate and Roundup damaged human embryonic and placental cells at concentrations below those used in agriculture, suggesting that they may interfere with human reproduction and embryonic development.
●Glyphosate’s main metabolite (environmental breakdown product), AMPA, altered cell cycle checkpoints by interfering with the cells’ DNA repair machinery. The failure of cell cycle checkpoints is known to lead to genomic instability and cancer in humans.
●Glyphosate and AMPA irreversibly damaged DNA, suggesting that they may increase the risk of cancer.
●Glyphosate promoted cancer in the skin of mice.
●Roundup caused cell and DNA damage to epithelial cells derived from the inside of the mouth and throat, and glyphosate alone caused DNA damage, raising concerns over the safety of inhaling the herbicide, one of the most common ways in which people are exposed.
Genetic Contamination is Inevitable, Co-existence is NOT Possible
In addition to causing harm to public health and ecosystems, GE seeds and crops provide a pathway for corporations to “own” seeds through patents and intellectual property rights (IPRs). Patents provide royalties for the patent holder and corporate monopolies. This translates into super profits for Monsanto. For the farmers this means debt.
At a conference in Washington, D.C. on the Future of Farming, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, referring to organic farming and GMOs said,
“I have two sons, I love them both and I want them to coexist.
Filmmaker Debra Grazia responded from the floor
“but one of your sons is a bully.”
GMOs contaminate non-GE crops. Contamination is inevitable, since cross pollination is inevitable, within the same species or with close relatives.
The most dramatic case of contamination and genetic pollution is the case of Percy Schmeiser, a Canadian Canola seed grower, whose crop was contaminated by Monsanto’s Round-Up Ready Canola. Instead of paying Percy for the damage of contamination in accordance with the “Polluter Pays” principle, Monsanto sued Percy for “Intellectual Property theft.”
The contamination of canola in Canada is so severe that 90 percent of certified non GE Canola seed samples contain GE material (www.lynnmaclaren.org.au/media-release-major-graintraders-reject-gm-canola).
The peaceful coexistence of GMOs and conventional crops is a myth: environmental contamination via cross-pollination, which poses a serious threat to biodiversity, is unavoidable.
*GM GE pollen can potentially cross-pollinate with both non-GM GE crops and weeds, potentially creating pest-resistant superweeds. Insects and wind can carry pollen over kilometers, and the situation is further complicated by the fact that seeds can stay in the soil for years before germinating. Moreover, there is no sure way to prevent human error or illegal planting of GM GEseeds. (GM Contaminations Briefing” Friendsof the Earth, January 2006. www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefing_notes/gene_escape.pdf
Separating fields of GM GE and non-GM GE seeds is not a sufficient precaution: low levels of pollution can be found as far as several hundred meters away, and it’ is difficult to draw the line at which contamination can be prevented. An Australian study in 2002 found GM GE genes as far as 3 km from the source.
*In May 2011, a report found GE seedlings in three traditional maize fields in Uruguay. (“GM Maize contaminates non-GM crops in Uruguay.” Daniela Hirschfeld. Scidev.net. May9 2011. www.gmwatch.eu/latest-listing/1-newsitems/13132-gm-maize-contaminates-non-gm-cropsin-uruguay)
*In 2004, GE papaya field trials in Thailand were found to be the source of widespread genetic contamination; more was found in 2005 after the Department of Agriculture claimed it had all been eradicated. (www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/features/gepapaya-010606/)
*In Japan in 2005, GE crops (corn, soya) were found growing all over ports as a result of seeds being spilled during unloading and transportation. (www.lifeissues.net/writers/mcc/mcc_01 geneticengin.html).
III. TRADE/POLICY INFLUENCE: Denial of labeling as the denial to consumers of their democratic“Right to Know” and “Right to Choose”
Critiques or analyses of food systems sometimes do not fully incorporate the broad impacts of trade and economic policies and agreements. For example, during negotiations for the Russian Federation’s accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO), multinational biotechnology firms, along with the U.S.government, lobbied Russian officials to accept aspecial agreement on biotechnology that would eliminate the country’s current GMO labeling laws and extend special allowances to U.S. biotechnology firms for their intellectual property rights pertaining to GM seeds and crops. Prior to enacting economic reforms to comply with WTO rules (e.g., lifting “barriers” to allowinvestments by foreign firms). Today, the bulk of value is now accounted for by private seed firms.
According to US industry, labeling of foods violates the WTO agreement on free trade. The Sanitary and Phyto-Sanitary measures in WTO are thus viewed by industry as protecting their interests. But the right to information is about democracy and democratic rights cannot be sanctioned by arbitrary technocratic and corporate decision making about what is ‘sounds cience’ and what is not.
The denial of labelling is one dimension of totalitarian structures associated with the introduction of genetical engineering in food and agriculture.
On July 5, 2011 Codex Alimentarius, the international food safety body, recognized the right of countries to label GMO foods. This ended twenty years of an international struggle. As the Consumer International states:
“The new Codex agreement means that any country wishing to adopt GM food labeling will no longer face the threat of a legal challenge from the World Trade Organization (WTO). This is because national measures based on Codex guidance or standards cannot be challenged as abarrier to trade.” (foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2011/07/05/codex-alimentarius-adopts-labeling-ofgenetically-modified-foods/).
We now need to build on this right-to–know principle and ensure GMO labeling in all countries.
IV. DISCREDITING SCIENTISTS OPPOSINGS GMOs
Another repeated story told is one of scientists being discredited, and in some cases, dismissed from their jobs, when they speak out about GMOs. Often when these scientists begin GM-related research, they are not opposed to the technology. But their findings reveal reasons to be concerned about the impact of GMOs on food safety, public health, and the environment.
Dr. Arpad Pusztai, a world renowned scientist, was one of the first victims of a smear campaign that eventually resulted in him being forced to leave his post as director of the Rowett Research Institute. In 1997, Dr. Pusztai and his wife and colleague, Dr. Susan Bardocz, carried out the first nutrition and toxicological study on GMOs. When he fed GM potatoes to lab rats, he found that the organs of the rats became critically damaged and their immune systems were severely weakened. Days after an interview with the BBC News in which he discussed his findings his laboratory notes were confiscated and he was dismissed from his post.
David Suzuki, a geneticist by training, reminds us that through out history technologies have been too frequently advanced without full review. As one example, in Nazi Germany, geneticist Josef Mengele held peer-reviewed research grants for his work at Auschwitz. Suzuki empasizes that societies should apply the Precautionary Principle with any new technology and ask whether it is needed and then demand proof that it is not harmful. Nowhere is this more important than in biotechnology because it enables us to tamper with the very blueprint of life.
GMOs have been released without a complete assessment of their effect on public health and the environment. And, as learned from past experiences, anyone entering an experiment should give informed consent. Suzuki concludes, “That means at the very least food should be labeled if it contains GMOs so we each can make that choice”.
But, the usual response to science that contradicts safety claims of the biotech industry is retaliatory. Often corporations providing research funds for universities and institutes threaten to withdraw funds if any research on GMOs counters their claims of high yields, reduced pesticide usage, product safety, or other claims. Such threats obviously serve as a “chilling effect” and can limit the scope of science and research.
V. GM FOOD REGULATION IN MOST COUNTRIES VARIES FROM NON-EXISTANT TO WEAK
Industry and some government sources claim that GM foods are strictly regulated. But GM food regulatory systems worldwide vary from voluntary industry self-regulation (in the US) to weak (in Europe). None are adequate to protect consumers’ health.
The Regulatory Process in The USA
GM foods were first commercialised in the US in the early 1990s. The US food regulator, the Food and Drug Adminstration (FDA), allowed the first GM foods onto world markets in spite of its own scientists’ warnings that genetic engineering is different from conventional breeding and poses special risks, including the production of new toxins or allergens. The FDA overruled its scientists in line with a US government decision to “foster” the growth of the GM industry. The FDA formed a policy for GM foods that did not require any safety tests or labeling.
The creation of this policy was overseen by Michael Taylor, FDA’s deputy commissioner of policy – a position created especially for Taylor. Taylor was a former attorney for the GM giant Monsanto and later became its vice president for public policy.
Contrary to popular belief, the FDA does not have a mandatory GM food safety assessment process and has never approved a GM food as safe. It does not carry out or commission safety tests on GM foods. Instead, the FDA operates a voluntary programme for pre-market review of GM foods. All GM food crops commercialised to date have gone through this review process, but there is no legal requirement for them to do so. Companies that develop GM crops are allowed to put any GMO (genetically modified organism) on the market that they wish, though they can be held liable for any harm to consumers that results from it.
The outcome of the FDA’s voluntary assessment is not a conclusion, underwritten by the FDA, that the GMO is safe. Instead, the FDA sends the company a letter to the effect that:
●The FDA acknowledges that the company has provided a summary of research that it has conducted assessing the GM crop’s safety
●The FDA states that, based on the results of the research done by the company, the company has concluded that the GMO is safe
●The FDA states that it has no further questions
●The FDA reminds the company that it is responsible for placing only safe foods in the market
●The FDA reminds the company that, if a product is found to be unsafe, the company may be held liable.
Clearly, this process does not guarantee – or even attempt to investigate – the safety of GM foods. While it does not protect the public, it may protect the FDA from legal liability in the event that harm is caused by a GM food.
The US government is not an impartial authority on GM crops. In fact, it has a policy of actively promoting them. Through its embassies and agencies such as the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), the US government pressures national governments around the world to accept GM crops. This has been made clear in a series of diplomatic cables disclosed by Wikileaks, which reveal that:
●The US embassy in Paris recommended that the US government launch a retaliation strategy against the EU that “causes some pain” as punishment for Europe’s reluctance to adopt GM crops.
●The US embassy in Spain suggested that the US government and Spain should draw up a joint strategy to help boost the development of GM crops in Europe.
●The US State Department is trying to steer African countries towards acceptance of GM crops.
This strategy of exerting diplomatic pressure on national governments to adopt GM crops is undemocratic as it interferes with their ability to represent the wishes of their citizens. It is also inappropriate to use US taxpayers’ money to promote products owned by individual corporations
The Regulatory Process in Europe and The Rest of the World
Many governments, including those of the EU, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand, have an agency that assesses the safety of GM crops. Based on its assessment, the agency recommends approval or rejection of the crop for use in food or animal feed. The final decision is made by the government.
In Europe, the relevant agency is the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Typically the EU member states fail to agree on whether to approve a GM crop, with most voting not to approve it, but the vote does not achieve the “qualified majority” required to reject the GMO. The decision passes to the European Commission, which ignores the desires of the simple majority of the member states and approves the GMO.
Worldwide, safety assessments of GMOs by government regulatory agencies are not scientifically rigorous. As in the US, they do not carry out or commission their own tests on the GM crop. Instead, they make decisions regarding the safety of the GMO based on studies commissioned by the very same companies that stand to profit from the crop’s approval.
The problem with this system is that industry studies have an inbuilt bias. Published reviews evaluating studies assessing the safety/hazards of various products or technologies have shown that industry-sponsored or industry-affiliated studies are more likely to reach a favourable conclusion about the safety of the product than independent (non-industry-affiliated) studies.
Studies on GM crops and foods are no exception. Two published reviews of the scientific literature show that industry-sponsored or –affiliated studies are more likely than independent studies to claim safety for GMOs.
Another problem is the frequently unpublished status of the studies that companies submit to regulatory agencies. The fact that they are not published means that they are not readily available for scrutiny by the public or independent scientists.Unpublished studies fall into the category of so-called “grey literature” – unpublished documents of unknown reliability.
The peer-reviewed publication process, while far from perfect, is the best method that scientists have come up with to ensure reliability. Its strength lies in a multi-step quality control process:
●The editor of the journal sends the study to qualified scientists (“peers”) to evaluate. They give feedback, including any suggested revisions, which are passed on to the authors of the study.
●Based on the outcome of the peer review process, the editor publishes the study, rejects it, or offers to publish it with revisions by the authors.
●Once the study is published, it can be scrutinised and repeated (replicated) by other scientists. This repeat-testing is the cornerstone of scientific reliability, because if other scientists were to come up with different findings, this would challenge the findings of the original study.
The lack of availability of industry studies in the past has resulted in the public being deceived over the safety of GMOs. For example, industry’s raw data on Monsanto’s GM Bt maize variety MON863 (approved in the EU in 2005) were only forced into the open through court action by Greenpeace. Then independent scientists at the France-based research organisation CRIIGEN analysed the raw data and found that Monsanto’s own feeding trial on rats revealed serious health effects – including liver and kidney toxicity – that had been hidden from the public.
Since this case and perhaps as a result of it, transparency has improved in Europe and the public can obtain industry toxicology data on GMOs from EFSA on request. Only a small amount of information, such as the genetic sequence of the GMO, can be kept commercially confidential.
Similarly, the Australian and New Zealand food safety agency FSANZ makes industry toxicology data on GMOs available on the Internet. However, in the US, significant portions of the data submitted to regulators are classified as “commercially confidential” and are shielded from public scrutiny.
VI. PATENTS ON SEEDS AND SEEDS MONOPOLY
GMOs are intimately linked to seed patents. Infact, patenting of seeds is the real reason why industry is promoting GMOs.
Monopolies over seeds are being established through patents, mergers and cross licensing arrangement.
Monsanto now controls the world’s biggest seed company, Seminis, which has bought up Peto Seed, Bruinismo, Genecorp, Barhan, Horticere, Agroceres, Royal Suis, Choon Ang, Hungnong. Other seed acquisitions and joint ventures of Monsanto are – Asgrow, De Rinter, Monsoy, FT Sementes, Carma, Advanta Canola, China Seed, CNDK, ISG, Wertern, Protec, Calgene, Deltapine Land, Syngenta Global Cotton Division, Agracetus, Marneot, EID Parry Rallis, CDM Mandiyu, Ciagro, Renessan, Cargill, Terrazawa, Cargill International Seed Division, Hybritech, Jacob Hartz 1995, Agriprowheat, Cotton States, Limagrain Canada, Alypanticipacoes, First line, Mahyco, Corn States Intl, Corn States Hybrid, Agroeste, Seusako, Emergent Genetics, Mahendra, Indusem, Darhnfeldt, Paras, Unilever, Dekelb, Lustum, Farm Seed, Deklbayala, Ayala, Polon, Ecogen, PBIC.
Monsanto has cross-licensing arrangements with BASF, Bayer, Dupont, Sygenta and Dow. They have agreements to share patented genetically engineered seed traits with each other. The giant seed corporations are not competing with each other. They are competing with peasants and farmers over the control of the seed supply.
The combination of patents, genetic contamination and the spread of monocultures means that society is rapidly losing its seed freedom and food freedom. Farmers are losing their freedom to have seed and grow organic food free of the threat of contamination by GE crops. Citizens are losing their freedom to know what they are eating, and the choice of whether or not to eat GE free food
VI. HISTORY TIMELINE OF MONSANTO
>>Timeline: 1901 - 2009
Over its 108-year history, Monsanto Co (MON.N), the world’s largest seed company, has evolved from primarily an industrial chemical concern into a pure agricultural products company. Following is a timeline of the St. Louis, Missouri-based company’s history published in 11 November 2009.
*1901 - Original Monsanto founded as a maker of saccharine by John F. Queeny and named after his wife, Olga Monsanto Queeny.
*1920s and 1930s - Manufacturers sulfuric acid and other chemicals, including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), which are later implicated in reproductive, developmental and immune system disorders.
*1940s - Manufactures plastics and synthetic fabrics.
*1960s - Establishes agricultural division with focus on herbicides.
*1962-1971 - Becomes one of principal companies supplying herbicide known as Agent Orange to U.S. military for use in Vietnam War. Agent Orange is later linked to various health problems, including cancer.
*1976 - Commercializes Roundup herbicide, which goes on to be a top seller around the world.
*1982 - Some 2,000 people are relocated from Times Beach, Missouri, after area is contaminated with PCB by-product dioxin. Critics say a St.Louis-area Monsanto chemical plant was a source but company denies any connection.
*1994 - Wins regulatory approval for its first biotech product, a dairy cow hormone called Posilac.
*1996 - Introduces first biotech crop, Roundup Ready soybeans, which tolerate spraying of Roundup herbicide, and biotech cotton engineered to resist insect damage.
*1997 - Spins off its industrial chemical and fibers business into Solutia Inc amid complaints and legal claims about pollution from its plants. Introduces new biotech canola, cotton and corn, and buys foundation seed companies.
*1998 - Introduces Roundup Ready corn.
*2000-2002 - Restructures in deal with Pharmacia & Upjohn Inc; separates agricultural and chemicals businesses and becomes stand alonea gricultural company.
*2002-2003 - Jury finds Monsanto plant in Anniston, Alabama, polluted community with PCBs. Monsanto and Solutia agree to pay $600 million to settle claims brought by 20,000 Anniston residents of PCB ground and water contamination.
*2003 - Solutia files Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
*2004 - Monsanto forms American Seeds Inc holding company for corn and soy bean seed deals and begins brand acquisitions.
*2005 - Environmental, consumer groups question safety of Roundup Ready crops, say they create “super weeds,” among other problems.
*2006-2007 - Buys several regional seed companies and cotton seed leader Delta and Pine Land Co. Competitors allege Monsanto gaining seed industry monopoly.
*2008 - Acquires sugar cane breeding companies, and a Dutch hybrid seed company. Sells Posilac business amid consumer and food industry concerns about the dairy cow hormone supplement.
*2008-2009 - U.S. Department of Justice says it is looking into monopolistic power in the U.S.seed industry.
*2009 - Posts record net sales of $11.7 billion and net income of $2.1 billion for fiscal 2009. Announces project to improve the living conditions of 10,000 small cotton and corn farmers in 1,100 villages in India; donates cotton technology to academic researchers.
VIII. RECORD OF MONSANTO
*1969: Produces Agent Orange, which was used as a defoliant by the U.S. Government during the Vietnam War.
*1976: Monsanto produces Cycle-Safe, the world’s first plastic soft-drink bottle. The bottle, suspected of posing a cancer risk, is banned the following year by the Food and Drug Administration of the U.S.
*1986: Monsanto found guilty of negligently exposing a worker to benzene at its Chocolate Bayou Plant in Texas. It is forced to pay $100 million to the family of Wilbur Jack Skeen, a worker who died of leukaemia after repeated exposures.
*1986: Monsanto spends $50,000 against California’s anti-toxics initiative, Proposition 65. The initiative prohibits the discharge of chemicals known to cause cancer or birth defects into drinking water supplies.
*1987: Monsanto is one of the companies named in an $180 million settlement for Vietnam War veterans exposed to Agent Orange.
*1988: A federal jury finds Monsanto Co.’s subsidiary, G.D. Searle & Co., negligent in testing and marketing of its Copper 7 intra uterine birth control device (IUD). The verdict followed the unsealing of internal documents regarding safetyconcerns about the IUD, which was used bynearly 10 million women between 1974 and 1986.
*1990: EPA chemists allege fraud in Monsanto’s 1979 dioxin study which found their exposure to the chemical doesn’t increase cancer risks.
*1990: Monsanto spends more than $405,000 to defeat California’s pesticide regulation Proposition 128, known as the “Big Green”initiative. The initiative was aimed at phasing out the use of pesticides, including Monsanto’s product Alachlor, linked to cancer and to global warming.
*1991: Monsanto is fined $1.2 million for trying to conceal discharge of contaminated waste water into the Mystic River in Connecticut.
*1995: Monsanto is sued after allegedly supplying radioactive material for a controversial study which involved feeding radioactive iron to 829 pregnant women.
*1995: Monsanto ordered to pay $41.1 million to a waste management company in Texas due to concerns over hazardous waste dumping.
*1995: The Safe Shoppers Bible says that Monsanto’s Ortho Weed-B-Gon Lawn Weed Killer contains a known carcinogen, 2,4 D.
*2005: According to the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission, Monsanto bribed at least 140 Indonesian officials or their families to get Bt cotton approved without an environmental impact assessment (EIA). In 2005, Monsanto paid $1.5 million in fines to the US Justice Department for these bribes.
*2005: Six Government scientists including Dr. Margaret Haydon told the Canadian Senate Committee of Monsanto’s ‘offer’ of a bribe of between $1-2 million to the scientists from Health Canada if they approved the company’s GM bovine growth hormone (rbGH) (banned in many countries outside the US), without further study, and how notes and files critical of scientific data provided by Monsanto were stolen from a locked filing cabinet in her office. One FDA scientist arbitrarily increased the allowable levels of antibiotics in milk 100-fold inorder to facilitate the approval of rbGH. She had just arrived at the FDA from Monsanto.
*2005: The US Patent and Trademark Office rejected four key Monsanto patents related to GM crops that the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) challenged because the agricultural giant is using them to harass, intimidate, sue -and in some cases bankrupt - American farmers. Monsanto devotes more than $10 million per year to such anti-farmer activities, over alleged improper use of its patented seeds.
*2005: The Alabama Court Judgement in February 2002 best describes the sort of business that Monsanto is in. In 1966, court documents in a case concerning Anniston residents in the US showed that Monsanto managers discovered that fish dunked in a local creek turned belly-up within 10 seconds, spurting blood and shedding skin as dropped into boiling water. In 1969, they found fish in another creek with 7,500 timesthe legal PCB level. But they never told theirneighbours and concluded that “there is little object in going to expensive extremes in limiting discharges – we can’t afford to lose one dollar of business”.
In fact court documents revealed that the company with held evidence about the safety of their PCBs to the residents of the town that were being poisoned by their factory to keep their profitable dollars. On February 22, 2002, a court found Monsanto guilty on six counts of Negligence, Wantoness And Supression of the Truth, Nuisance, Trespass And Outrage. Outrage according to Alabama law is conduct “so outrageous in character and extreme indegree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency so as to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in civilized society.”
*2005: Monsanto omitted incriminating data altogether from its 1996 published study on GM soy beans. When the data was recovered later by an investigator, it showed that GM soy contained significantly lower levels of protein and other nutrients and toasted GM soy meal contained nearly twice the amount of a lectin (protein) that may block the body’s ability to assimilate other nutrients. Furthermore, the toasted GM soy contained as much as seventimes the amount of trypsin inhibitor, a major soy allergen.
Monsanto named their study: “The composition of glyphosate-tolerant soy bean seeds is equivalent to that of conventiona lsoy beans”!
In Europe, Monsanto refused to reveal the results of its own secret animal feeding studies, which revealed serious abnormalities to rats fed GM corn, citing CBI (Confidential Business Information) until forced to do so by a German Court. One of its Bt corn products (the only GM crop grown in the EU) was subsequently banned for planting in France and other EU countries based on the appraisal by Seralini of Monsanto’s own dossier.
*2009: A U.S. Federal Court ruled on 24th September, 2009, that USDA violated federal law by allowing Monsanto’s genetically engineered sugar beet on the market.
*2009: As is usually known it is common for U.S. MNC’s to bribe Indian officials to achieve their objectives.
IX. ACTIONS FOR DEMOCRACY
GMOs have become the testing site for our freedoms and democracy. They are defining the entire system of control of our food, based on an illusion.
Over the last two decades movements have grown around the world with creative actions and creative ideas that have helped people resist GMOs. This article is a distillation of the movement for building the food democracyt hat has become vital for our survival.
Below are actions that will contribute towards achieving this goal. Join the chorus in exposing the GMO companies and help build Food Democracy for all.
*Campaign to Disinvest from Monsanto: get your money out of Monsanto – at the personal level and at the institutional level. Don’t invest in financial institutions that invest in Monsanto. Start a campaign of disinvestment from Monsanto and lobby governments, banks, foundations and organizations to divest from Monsanto. The youth of Norway have already started the process to get Norway’s Oil Fund out of Monsanto.
www.combat-monsanto.co.uk, www.monsanto.no
*Boycott GMOs - Eat organic. Stop buying GMO products. One of the illusions created by the GMO companies is that organic cannot feed the world. This is scientifically not the case as pointed out in the IAASTD report and UN Special Rapporteur report on the right to food.
[www.gene-watch.org. www.organicconsumers.org/action.cfm]
*Demand Labeling of GMOs. Uphold your right to know what you eat. In a food democracy you have the right to know what you eat. On July 5, 2011, Codex Alimentarius, the international food safety body recognized the right of countries to label GMO foods. Thus (after 20 years of battle) the consumer right to be informed has been secured.
[www.consumersinternational.org]
*Put your money to support local ecological/organic food projects and invest in the future. Become partners with farmers who are producing organic food, join Community Supported Agriculture (CSAs), support a farmer’s market, and support organic farming in your region to build local food systems through creative innovative local financing. Start Gardens of Hope in your community, your backyard and in your schools. [http://www.organicgardeninfo.com]
*Campaign to get your village/town/region/country GMO-free. Become part of the world wide GMO-free movement. Write to your municipality, your town council, your regional government and your national government that you want your region to be GMO-free. Join the True Food Network to sign on to letters to Congress, governmental agencies, and other campaigns as well as receive action alerts for events across the U.S.
[http://truefoodnow.org]
*Help save seeds. Support groups that save seeds and are reclaiming seed as a commons. Create community seed banks, to save and exchange open pollinated varieties of seeds. Seed freedom is the first step in food freedom. Saving Our Seeds provides information, resources, and publications for gardeners, farmers, seed savers, and seed growers.
[http://www.savingourseeds.org]
Iceland, January 18 2013
~*MA.AR
Postscript:
I understand, from my scientific mentors and my reading, that there are two areas in which the relationship of causes and effects is highly complex: that which is internal to organisms, and that of the larger natural and human contexts – ultimately the world. In biotechnology, as in any technology affecting living systems, there is nothing perfectly predictable. What we do within living bodies and in the living world is never a simple mechanical procedure such as threading a needle or winding a watch. Mystery exists; unforeseen andunforeseeable consequences are common.
Biotechnology, as practiced so far, is bad science – a science willingly disdainful or ignorant of the ecological and human costs of previous scientific-technological revolutions (such as the introduction of chemistry into agriculture), and disdainful of criticism within the scientific disciplines. It is, moreover a science involved directly with product-development, marketing, and political lobbying on behalf of the products – and, therefore, is directly corruptible by personal self-interest and greed. For such a science to present itself in the guise of objectivity or philanthropy is, at best, hypocritical.
If biotechnology is not a sufficient, or even an adequate, answer to agricultural problems, then what do we need? My own answer is that we need a science of agriculture that is authentically new – a science that freely and generously accepts the farm, the local ecosystem, and the local community as contexts, and then devotes itself to the relationship between farming and its ecological and cultural supports.
*BIBLIOGRAPHY*
1. Pusztai A, Bardocz S, Ewen SWB. Genetically modified foods: Potential human health effects. In: D’Mello JPF, ed. Food Safety: Contaminants and Toxins. Wallingford, Oxon: CABI Publishing 2003:347–372.
2. Wilson AK, Latham JR, Steinbrecher RA. Transformation-induced mutations in transgenic plants: Analysis and biosafety implications. Biotechnol Genet Eng Rev. 2006; 23: 209–238.
3. Folta K. Cisgenics – transgenics without the transgene. Biofortified. 20 September 2010. www.biofortified.org/2010/09/cisgenics-transgenics-without-the-transgene/
4. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Safety Evaluation of Foods Derived by Modern Biotechnology: Concepts and Principles: OECD Publishing; 1993.
5. Tokar B. Deficiencies in federal regulatory oversight of genetically engineered crops. Institute for Social Ecology Biotechnology Project. June 2006. environmentalcommons.org/RegulatoryDeficiencies.html
6. Kahl L. Memorandum to Dr James Maryanski, FDA biotechnology coordinator, about the Federal Register document, “Statement of policy: Foods from genetically modified plants”. US Food & Drug Administration. 8 January 1992. www.biointegrity.org/FDAdocs/01/01.pdf
7. Bittman M. Why aren’t GMO foods labeled? New York Times. 15 February 2011. opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/why-arent-g-m-o-foods-labeled/
8. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) GMO Panel. Guidance on the environmental risk assessment of genetically modified plants. EFSA Journal. 2010; 8(11): 1879–1990.
9. African Biodiversity Network. www.africanbiodiversity.org.
10. GeneEthics Network/Madge. www.geneethics.org.
11. Argentina: las consecuencias inevitables de un modelo genocida y ecocida. Biodiversidad sustento y culturas Magazine, August 2009, available at: www.biodiversidadla.org/content/view/full/5087435
12. Review of potential environmental impacts of transgenic glyphosate-resistant soybean in Brazil. Cerdeira et al, 2007, available at: www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a779480992.
13. Dr. Charles Benbrook, Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use in the United States: The FirstThirteen Years,” The Organic Center, Nov. 2009, p. 47 & Supplemental Table 7, www.organic-center.org/science.pest.php?action=view&report_id=159.
14. Olivier De Schutter, Food Commodities Speculation and Food Price Crises, issue brief, Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations, 2010, p. 1-2, www.srfood.org/images/stories/pdf/otherdocuments/20102309_briefing_note_02_en.pdf(accessed 18 January 2011)
15. documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/BiotechLobbying-web.pdf
16. How to Avoid Foods Made with Genetically Modified Organisms [GMOs]: http://truefoodnow.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/cfs-shoppers-guide.pdf
17. Non GMO Verified Products: www.nongmoproject.org/find-non-gmo/search-participating-products/
18. The Revolving Door Between Monsanto and The U.S Government: www.journaloftheearth.com/wpjote/wp-content/themes/jotetheme1/Monsanto-Revolving-Door.pdf
by Melissa Akira Aquino Ramírez on Friday, 18 January 2013 at 14:38 ·
Foreword:
We have been repeatedly told that genetically engineered (GE) crops will save the world by increasing yields and producing more food. They will save the world by controlling pests and weeds. They will save the world by reducing chemical use in agriculture. They will save the world with GE drought tolerant seeds and other seed traits that will provide resilience in times of climate change. However, all of these claims have been established as false over years of experience all across the world. GMO is threatening the very basis of our freedom to know what we eat and to choose what we eat. Our biodiversity and our seed freedom are in peril. Our food freedom, food democracy and food sovereignty are at STAKE. This article brings together evidence from the ground of Monsanto’sand the industry’s false promises and failed technology.
I. FAILURE TO YIELD
Contrary to the claim of feeding the world, genetic engineering has not increased the yield of a single crop. Navdanya’s research in India has shown that contrary to Monsanto’s claim of Bt cotton yield of 1500 kg per acre, the reality is that the yield is an average of 400-500 kg per acre. Although Monsanto’s Indian advertising campaign reports a 50 percent increase in yields for its Bollgard cotton, a survey conducted by the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology found that the yields in all trial plots were lower than what the company promised.
Bollgard’s failure to deliver higher yields has been reported all over the world. The Mississippi Seed Arbitration Council ruled thatin 1997, Monsanto’s Roundup Ready cotton failed to perform as advertised, recommending payments of nearly $2 million to three cotton farmers who suffered severe crop losses.
A report by the Union of Concerned Scientists in the U.S., has established that genetic engineering has not contributed to yield increases in any crop. According to this report, increases in crop yields in the U.S. are due to yield characteristics of conventional crops, not genetic engineering.
Australian research shows that conventional crops out perform GE crops.
Yield Comparison of GE Canola Trials in Australia
Despite Monsanto adding the Roundup Ready gene to ‘elite varieties’, the best Australian trials of Roundup Ready Canola yielded only 1.055 t/ha, at least 16 percent below the national average of 1.23 t/ha www.non-gm-farmers.com/documents/GM Canola report-full.pdf
While increased food productivity is the argument used to promote genetic engineering, when the issue of potential economic impacts on farmers is brought up, the biotechnology industry it self argues that genetic engineering does not lead to increased productivity.
Robert Shapiro, CEO of Monsanto, referring to Posilac (Monsanto’s bovine growth hormone) in Business Ethics, said on the one hand that:
“There is need for agricultural productivity, including dairy productivity, to double if we want to feed all the people who will be joining us, so I think this is unequivocally a good product.”
On the other hand, when asked about the product’s economic impact on farmers, he said that it would “play arelatively small role in the process of increasing dairy productivity.”
In twenty years of commercialization of GE crops, only two traits have been developed on a significant scale: herbicide tolerance, and insect resistance (Bt crops).
II. FAILED TECHNOLOGY: GE CROPS DO NOT CONTROL PESTS AND WEEDS, THEY CREATE SUPER PESTS AND SUPER WEEDS
Herbicide tolerant (Roundup Ready) crops were supposed to control weeds and Bt crops were intended to control pests. Instead of controlling weeds and pests, GE crops have led to the emergence of super weeds and super pests. In the U.S., Round Up Ready crops have produced weeds resistant to Round Up.
Approximately 15 million acres are now overtaken by Roundup resistant “superweeds”, and, in an attempt to stop the spread of these weeds, Monsanto has started offering farmers a “rebate” of up to $6 per acre for purchasing and using other, more lethal herbicides. These rebates offset approximately 25 to 35 percent of cost of purchasing the other herbicides. [blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2010/10/19/monsanto-paying-farmers-to-increase-herbicide-use/]
In India, Bt cotton sold under the trade name “Bollgard” was supposed to control the Bollworm pest. Today, the Bollworm has become resistant to Bt cotton and now Monsanto is selling Bollgard II with two additional toxic genes in it. New pests have emerged and farmers are using more pesticides.
Bt crops: A Recipe for Super Pests
Bt is a naturally occurring organism Bacillus thuringiensis which produces a toxin. Corporations are now adding genes for Bt toxins to a wide array of crops to enable the plants to produce their own insecticide.
Monsanto sells its Bt potato as ‘Nature Mark’ in Canada and describes it as a plant using “sunshine, air and soil nutrients to make a biodegradable protein that affects just one specific insect pest, and only those individual insects that actually take a bite of the plants.”
The camouflaged description of a transgenic crop hides many of the ecological impacts of genetically engineered crops. The illusion of sustainability is manufactured through the following distortions.
>>1. The Bt Plant does not merely use ‘sunshine, air,and soil nutrients’. Bt crops are transgenic and have a gene from a bacterium called bacillus thuringiensis (bt) which produces the Bt toxin.In addition it has antibiotic resistance marker genes and genes from viruses as promoters.
>>2. The so called ‘biodegradable protein’ is actuallya toxin which the gene continuously produces in the plant. This protein has been found in the blood of pregnant women and their fetuses.
>>3. Insect pests like the cotton bollworm which destroy cotton can actually evolve resistance because of continuous release of the toxin and hence become ‘super pest'
>>4. The Bt crop does not affect ‘just one specific pest’. Beneficial insects like bees and ladybirds can be seriously affected. A Cornell studys howed that the Bt toxin affected the Monarch butterfly.
The widespread use of Bt containing crops could accelerate the development of insect pest resistance to Bt which is used for organic pest control. Already eight species of insects have developed resistance to Bt toxins, either in the field or laboratory, including the diamond back moth, Indian meal moth, tobacco budworm, Colorado potato beetle, and two species of mosquitoes.
A new Super Pest which has become Resistant to GM Corn
Herbicide Resistant Crops: A Recipe for Superweeds
Herbicide resistant crops such as Roundup Ready cotton can create the risk of herbicide resistant “superweeds” by transferring the herbicide resistance to weeds. Monsanto has confirmed that a notorious Australian weed, rye grass, has developed tolerance to its herbicide Roundup, thus rendering genetic engineering of herbicide resistant crops a useless strategy.
In 1994, research scientists in Denmark reported strong evidence that an oil seed rape plant genetically engineered to be herbicide tolerant transmitted its transgene to a weedy natural relative, Brassica campestris ssp. Campestris. This transfer can become established in the plant in just two generations.
Current surveys indicate that almost 20 percent of U.S producers have found glyphosate resistant (Roundup Resistant) weeds on their farms. (farmindustrynews.com/crop-protection/diversificationprevents-weed-resistance-glyphosate)
Referring to Round Up Resistant weeds, Andrew Wargo III, the President of the Arkansas Association of Conservation Districts said:
“It is the single largest threat to production agriculture that we have ever seen”. (William Neuman &Andrew Pollack, Farmers Cope with Round-Up Resistance Weeds, New York Times, 4th May 2010)
There are now ten resistant species in at least 22 states infesting millions of acres, predominantly soybeans, cotton, and corn. Roundup Resistant weeds include pig weed, rag weed, and horse weed. Today, Roundup Ready crops account for 90 percent of soybeans and 70 percent of corn and cotton grown in the US.
As a result of this weed resistance, farmers are being forced to use more herbicides to combat weeds. As Bill Freese of the Center for Food Safety in Washington, D.C., says
“The biotech industry is taking us into a more pesticide dependent agriculture, and we need to be going in the opposite direction.” The problem of “superweeds” is so severe that U.S Congress organized a hearing on it titled “Are Superweeds on Outgrowth of USDA Biotech Policy”.
(westernfarmpress.com/management/super-weedsput-usda-hotseat)
When introduced to regions such as China,Taiwan, Japan, Korea and former USSR where wild relatives of soy are found, Monsanto’s Roundup Ready Soya bean could transfer the herbicide resistant genes to wild relatives leading to new weed problems.
The native biodiversity richness of the Third World thus increases the environmental risks of introduced genetically modified species.
The genetic engineering miracle is quite clearly faltering in farmers’ fields. Yet the information on the hazards and risks does not accompany the sales promotion of genetically engineered crops. Nor does the false promise of the biotech miracle inform farmers that the genetic engineering era of farming also requires ‘high-tech slavery’ for farmers.
III. False Promises
Reduced Use of Chemicals
Despite claims that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) will lower the levels of chemicals (pesticides and herbicides) used, this has not been the case. This is of great concern both because of the negative impacts of these chemicals on ecosystems and humans, and because there is the danger that increased chemical use will cause pests and weeds to develop resistance, requiring even more chemicals in order to manage them.
>>India
A survey in Vidharbha showed that pesticide use has increased 13-fold there since Bt cotton was introduced.
A study recently published in the Review of Agrarian Studies also showed a higher expenditure on chemical pesticides for Bt cotton than for other varieties for small farmers. (Are there Benefits from the Cultivation of Bt cotton? Review of Agrarian Studies Vol 1(1) January- June 2011. Madhura Swaminathan* and Vikas Rawal)
Non-target pest populations in Bt cotton fields have exploded, which will likely erode and counteract any decrease in pesticide use (Glenn Davis Stone. Field versus Farm in Warangal: Bt cotton, Higher Yields, and Larger Questions. World Development, 2011; 39 (3): 387)
>>In China, where Bt cotton is widely planted:
Populations of mirid bugs, pests that previously posed only a minor problem, have increased 12-fold since 1997. A 2008 study in the International Journal of Biotechnology found that any financial benefits of planting Bt cotton had been eroded by the increasing use of pesticides needed to combat non-target pests. (“Benefits of Bt cotton elude farmers in China” GM Watch, www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/13089).
>>In the US, due mainly to the widespread use of Roundup Ready seeds:
Herbicide use increased 15 percent (318 million additional pounds) from 1994 to 2005—an average increase of ¼ pound per each acre planted with GM seed—according to a 2009 report published by the Organic Center. (www.organic-center.org/science.pest.php?action=view&report_id=159).
The same report found that in 2008, GM crops required 26 percent more pounds of pesticides per acre than acres planted with conventional varieties, and projects that this trend will continue due the spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds. (www.organic-center.org/science.pest.php?action=view&report_id=159).
Moreover, the rise of glyphosate (the herbicide in Roundup Up)- resistant weeds has made it necessary to combat these weeds by employing other, often more toxic herbicides. This trend is confirmed by 2010 USDA pesticide data, which shows sky rocketing glyphosate use accompanied by constant or increasing rates of use for other, more toxic, herbicides. (Despite Industry Claims, Herbicide Use Fails to Decline with GM Crops.” GM Watch. www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/13089)
Moreover, the introduction of Bt corn in the US has had no impact on insecticide use, and while Bt cotton is associated with a decrease in insecticide use in some areas, insecticide applications in Alabama, where Bt cotton is planted widely, doubled between 1997 and 2000. (Benbrook, Charles. “Do GM Crops Mean Less Pesticide Use?” Pesticide Outlook, October 2001. www.biotech-info.net/benbrook_outlook.pdf).
>>In Argentina, after the introduction of Roundup Ready soya in 1999:
Overall glyphosate use more than tripled by 2005. A 2001 report found that Roundup Ready soya growers in Argentina used more than twice as much herbicide as conventional soya growers. (“Who Benefits from GM Crops? Feed the Biotech Giants, Not the World’s Poor.” Friends of the Earth International, February 2009). (www.foei.org/en/resources/publications/pdfs/2009/gmcrops2009exec.pdf)
In 2007, a glyphosate-resistant version of Johnsongrass (considered one of the worst and most difficult weeds in the world) was reported on more than 120,000 hectares of prime agricultural land - a consequence of the increase in glyphosate use. (www.foei.org/en/resources/publications/pdfs/2009/gmcrops2009exec.pdf)
As a result, it was recommended that farmers use a mix of herbicides other than glyphosate (often more toxic) to combat the resistant weeds, and it is estimated that an additional 25 liters of herbicides will be needed each year to control the resistant weeds.
>>In Brazil, which has been the worlds’ largest consumer of pesticides since 2008:
(“Use of Pesticides in Brazil continues to Grow.” GM Watch, April 18 2011. www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/13072-use-of-pesticides-inbrazil-continues-to-grow).
GE crops became legally available in 2005, and now make up 45 percent of all row crops planted in Brazil — a percentage that is only expected to increase. (Brazilian Farmers are Rapidly Adopting Genetically Modified Crops.” Soybean and Corn Advisor, March 10, 2010. www.soybeansandcorn.com/news/Mar10_10-Brazilian-Farmers-Are-Rapidly-Adopting-Gentically-Modified-Crops)
Soy area has increased 71 percent, but herbicide use has increased 95 percent. (“GM Agriculture: Promises or Problems for farming in South Africa?” (BioWatch South Africa, May 16 2011. www.sacau.org/hosting/sacau/SacauWeb.nsf/SACAU 2011_Biowatch- GMagriculture Promises or problems for farming in South Africa.pdf )
Of 18 herbicide-resistant weed species reported, five are glyphosate-resistant. (“Use of Pesticides in Brazil continues to Grow.” GM Watch, April 18 2011. www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/13072-use-of-pesticidesin-brazil-continues-to-grow)
In 2009, total herbicide active ingredient use was 18.7 percent higher for GE crops than conventional (“GM Crops: Global socioeconomic and environmental impacts 1996-2009” Graham Brookes and Peter Barfoot. PG Economics Ltd. UK. 2011).
Climate Resilience
Climate change is often used as a reason to claim that we need GM crops. (Gray L. GM foods “could feed growing population during climate change”. The Telegraph (UK). 22 January 2009. tgr.ph/nnywRL)
But the evidence suggests that the solutions to climate change do not lie in GM. This is because tolerance to extreme weather conditions such as drought and flooding – and resistance to the pests and diseases that often accompany them – are complex traits that cannot be delivered through GM.
Where a GM crop is claimed to possess such complex traits, they have generally been achieved through conventional breeding, not GM. Simple GM traits such as pest resistance or herbicide tolerance are added to the conventionally bred crop so as to put the biotech company’s “brand” on it after the complex trait is developed through conventional breeding.
While the resulting crop is often claimed as a GM success, this is untrue. It is a success of conventional breeding, with added GM traits. The GM traits do not contribute to the agronomic performance of the crop but make the crop the property of a biotech company and (in the case of herbicide tolerance) keep farmers dependent on chemical inputs sold by the same company.
Chemically-based agriculture is a major contributor to climate change. GM proponents claim that GM crops can help reverse this trend by enabling the adoption of no-till farming, which avoids ploughing and relies on herbicide applications to control weeds.
On the basis of this argument, Monsanto is lobbying for GM Roundup Ready crop cultivation to be made eligible for carbon credits under the United Nations’ Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). The CDM aims to promote technologies that mitigate climate change. Industrialized countries and companies in the Global North can continue to emit the same amount of greenhouse gases and still meet their required emissions reductions by funding CDM projects, most of which are in the Global South.
Industry claims of improved carbon sequestration for GM Roundup Ready crops with no-till are not supported by research. A comprehensive review of the scientific literature found that no-till fields sequester no more carbon than ploughed fields when carbon sequestration at soil depths greater than 30 cm is taken into account. Studies claiming to find carbon sequestration benefits from no-till only measure carbon sequestration down to a depth of about 30cm and so do not give an accurate picture.
Health Hazards
Among the false claims made by Monsanto and the Biotechnology industry is that GM foods are safe. However, there are enough independent studies to show that GE foods can cause health damage.
For example, Dr. Arpad Pusztai’s research has shown that rats fed with GM potatoes had enlarged pancreases, their brains had shrunk, and their immunity had been damaged. Dr.Eric Seralini’s research demonstrated that organ damage can occur.
Experiment by Irina Ermakova: influence of GM-soy (Roundup Ready) on same age rats : control group on left, GM-soy on right with pups small sizes and weights
Independent studies on human cells and experimental animals have shown that glyphosate and Roundup have serious toxic effects, in many cases at low levels that could be found in the environment or as residues in food or feed. The added ingredients (adjuvants) in Roundup are themselves toxic and increase the toxicity of glyphosate by enabling it to penetrate human and animal cells more easily. Findings include:
●Glyphosate and Roundup caused malformations in frog and chicken embryos.
●Roundup caused skeletal malformations in rat foetuses.
●Industry’s own studies conducted for regulatory purposes as long ago as the 1980s show that glyphosate caused birth defects in rats and rabbits. These effects were seen not only at high, maternally toxic doses, but also GMO at lower doses. Interestingly, these effects were discounted by regulators, who approved glyphosate for use in food production.
●Roundup caused liver and kidney toxicity in fish at sublethal doses. Effects in the liver included haemorrhage and necrosis (death of cells and living tissue).
●Roundup caused total cell death in human cells within 24 hours at concentrations far below those used in agriculture and corresponding to levels of residues found in food and feed.
●Roundup caused death of human cells and programmed cell death at a concentration of 50 parts per million, far below agricultural dilutions.
●Roundup was a potent endocrine disruptor at levels up to 800 times lower than residue levels allowed in food and feed. It was toxic to human cells and caused DNA damage at doses far below those used in agriculture.
●Glyphosate was toxic to human placental cells and is an endocrine disruptor in concentrations lower than those found with agricultural use. Roundup adjuvants amplified glyphosate’s toxicity by enabling it to penetrate cells more easily and to bioaccumulate in cells.
●Glyphosate and Roundup damaged human embryonic and placental cells at concentrations below those used in agriculture, suggesting that they may interfere with human reproduction and embryonic development.
●Glyphosate’s main metabolite (environmental breakdown product), AMPA, altered cell cycle checkpoints by interfering with the cells’ DNA repair machinery. The failure of cell cycle checkpoints is known to lead to genomic instability and cancer in humans.
●Glyphosate and AMPA irreversibly damaged DNA, suggesting that they may increase the risk of cancer.
●Glyphosate promoted cancer in the skin of mice.
●Roundup caused cell and DNA damage to epithelial cells derived from the inside of the mouth and throat, and glyphosate alone caused DNA damage, raising concerns over the safety of inhaling the herbicide, one of the most common ways in which people are exposed.
Genetic Contamination is Inevitable, Co-existence is NOT Possible
In addition to causing harm to public health and ecosystems, GE seeds and crops provide a pathway for corporations to “own” seeds through patents and intellectual property rights (IPRs). Patents provide royalties for the patent holder and corporate monopolies. This translates into super profits for Monsanto. For the farmers this means debt.
At a conference in Washington, D.C. on the Future of Farming, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, referring to organic farming and GMOs said,
“I have two sons, I love them both and I want them to coexist.
Filmmaker Debra Grazia responded from the floor
“but one of your sons is a bully.”
GMOs contaminate non-GE crops. Contamination is inevitable, since cross pollination is inevitable, within the same species or with close relatives.
The most dramatic case of contamination and genetic pollution is the case of Percy Schmeiser, a Canadian Canola seed grower, whose crop was contaminated by Monsanto’s Round-Up Ready Canola. Instead of paying Percy for the damage of contamination in accordance with the “Polluter Pays” principle, Monsanto sued Percy for “Intellectual Property theft.”
The contamination of canola in Canada is so severe that 90 percent of certified non GE Canola seed samples contain GE material (www.lynnmaclaren.org.au/media-release-major-graintraders-reject-gm-canola).
The peaceful coexistence of GMOs and conventional crops is a myth: environmental contamination via cross-pollination, which poses a serious threat to biodiversity, is unavoidable.
*GM GE pollen can potentially cross-pollinate with both non-GM GE crops and weeds, potentially creating pest-resistant superweeds. Insects and wind can carry pollen over kilometers, and the situation is further complicated by the fact that seeds can stay in the soil for years before germinating. Moreover, there is no sure way to prevent human error or illegal planting of GM GEseeds. (GM Contaminations Briefing” Friendsof the Earth, January 2006. www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefing_notes/gene_escape.pdf
Separating fields of GM GE and non-GM GE seeds is not a sufficient precaution: low levels of pollution can be found as far as several hundred meters away, and it’ is difficult to draw the line at which contamination can be prevented. An Australian study in 2002 found GM GE genes as far as 3 km from the source.
*In May 2011, a report found GE seedlings in three traditional maize fields in Uruguay. (“GM Maize contaminates non-GM crops in Uruguay.” Daniela Hirschfeld. Scidev.net. May9 2011. www.gmwatch.eu/latest-listing/1-newsitems/13132-gm-maize-contaminates-non-gm-cropsin-uruguay)
*In 2004, GE papaya field trials in Thailand were found to be the source of widespread genetic contamination; more was found in 2005 after the Department of Agriculture claimed it had all been eradicated. (www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/features/gepapaya-010606/)
*In Japan in 2005, GE crops (corn, soya) were found growing all over ports as a result of seeds being spilled during unloading and transportation. (www.lifeissues.net/writers/mcc/mcc_01 geneticengin.html).
III. TRADE/POLICY INFLUENCE: Denial of labeling as the denial to consumers of their democratic“Right to Know” and “Right to Choose”
Critiques or analyses of food systems sometimes do not fully incorporate the broad impacts of trade and economic policies and agreements. For example, during negotiations for the Russian Federation’s accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO), multinational biotechnology firms, along with the U.S.government, lobbied Russian officials to accept aspecial agreement on biotechnology that would eliminate the country’s current GMO labeling laws and extend special allowances to U.S. biotechnology firms for their intellectual property rights pertaining to GM seeds and crops. Prior to enacting economic reforms to comply with WTO rules (e.g., lifting “barriers” to allowinvestments by foreign firms). Today, the bulk of value is now accounted for by private seed firms.
According to US industry, labeling of foods violates the WTO agreement on free trade. The Sanitary and Phyto-Sanitary measures in WTO are thus viewed by industry as protecting their interests. But the right to information is about democracy and democratic rights cannot be sanctioned by arbitrary technocratic and corporate decision making about what is ‘sounds cience’ and what is not.
The denial of labelling is one dimension of totalitarian structures associated with the introduction of genetical engineering in food and agriculture.
On July 5, 2011 Codex Alimentarius, the international food safety body, recognized the right of countries to label GMO foods. This ended twenty years of an international struggle. As the Consumer International states:
“The new Codex agreement means that any country wishing to adopt GM food labeling will no longer face the threat of a legal challenge from the World Trade Organization (WTO). This is because national measures based on Codex guidance or standards cannot be challenged as abarrier to trade.” (foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2011/07/05/codex-alimentarius-adopts-labeling-ofgenetically-modified-foods/).
We now need to build on this right-to–know principle and ensure GMO labeling in all countries.
IV. DISCREDITING SCIENTISTS OPPOSINGS GMOs
Another repeated story told is one of scientists being discredited, and in some cases, dismissed from their jobs, when they speak out about GMOs. Often when these scientists begin GM-related research, they are not opposed to the technology. But their findings reveal reasons to be concerned about the impact of GMOs on food safety, public health, and the environment.
Dr. Arpad Pusztai, a world renowned scientist, was one of the first victims of a smear campaign that eventually resulted in him being forced to leave his post as director of the Rowett Research Institute. In 1997, Dr. Pusztai and his wife and colleague, Dr. Susan Bardocz, carried out the first nutrition and toxicological study on GMOs. When he fed GM potatoes to lab rats, he found that the organs of the rats became critically damaged and their immune systems were severely weakened. Days after an interview with the BBC News in which he discussed his findings his laboratory notes were confiscated and he was dismissed from his post.
David Suzuki, a geneticist by training, reminds us that through out history technologies have been too frequently advanced without full review. As one example, in Nazi Germany, geneticist Josef Mengele held peer-reviewed research grants for his work at Auschwitz. Suzuki empasizes that societies should apply the Precautionary Principle with any new technology and ask whether it is needed and then demand proof that it is not harmful. Nowhere is this more important than in biotechnology because it enables us to tamper with the very blueprint of life.
GMOs have been released without a complete assessment of their effect on public health and the environment. And, as learned from past experiences, anyone entering an experiment should give informed consent. Suzuki concludes, “That means at the very least food should be labeled if it contains GMOs so we each can make that choice”.
But, the usual response to science that contradicts safety claims of the biotech industry is retaliatory. Often corporations providing research funds for universities and institutes threaten to withdraw funds if any research on GMOs counters their claims of high yields, reduced pesticide usage, product safety, or other claims. Such threats obviously serve as a “chilling effect” and can limit the scope of science and research.
V. GM FOOD REGULATION IN MOST COUNTRIES VARIES FROM NON-EXISTANT TO WEAK
Industry and some government sources claim that GM foods are strictly regulated. But GM food regulatory systems worldwide vary from voluntary industry self-regulation (in the US) to weak (in Europe). None are adequate to protect consumers’ health.
The Regulatory Process in The USA
GM foods were first commercialised in the US in the early 1990s. The US food regulator, the Food and Drug Adminstration (FDA), allowed the first GM foods onto world markets in spite of its own scientists’ warnings that genetic engineering is different from conventional breeding and poses special risks, including the production of new toxins or allergens. The FDA overruled its scientists in line with a US government decision to “foster” the growth of the GM industry. The FDA formed a policy for GM foods that did not require any safety tests or labeling.
The creation of this policy was overseen by Michael Taylor, FDA’s deputy commissioner of policy – a position created especially for Taylor. Taylor was a former attorney for the GM giant Monsanto and later became its vice president for public policy.
Contrary to popular belief, the FDA does not have a mandatory GM food safety assessment process and has never approved a GM food as safe. It does not carry out or commission safety tests on GM foods. Instead, the FDA operates a voluntary programme for pre-market review of GM foods. All GM food crops commercialised to date have gone through this review process, but there is no legal requirement for them to do so. Companies that develop GM crops are allowed to put any GMO (genetically modified organism) on the market that they wish, though they can be held liable for any harm to consumers that results from it.
The outcome of the FDA’s voluntary assessment is not a conclusion, underwritten by the FDA, that the GMO is safe. Instead, the FDA sends the company a letter to the effect that:
●The FDA acknowledges that the company has provided a summary of research that it has conducted assessing the GM crop’s safety
●The FDA states that, based on the results of the research done by the company, the company has concluded that the GMO is safe
●The FDA states that it has no further questions
●The FDA reminds the company that it is responsible for placing only safe foods in the market
●The FDA reminds the company that, if a product is found to be unsafe, the company may be held liable.
Clearly, this process does not guarantee – or even attempt to investigate – the safety of GM foods. While it does not protect the public, it may protect the FDA from legal liability in the event that harm is caused by a GM food.
The US government is not an impartial authority on GM crops. In fact, it has a policy of actively promoting them. Through its embassies and agencies such as the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), the US government pressures national governments around the world to accept GM crops. This has been made clear in a series of diplomatic cables disclosed by Wikileaks, which reveal that:
●The US embassy in Paris recommended that the US government launch a retaliation strategy against the EU that “causes some pain” as punishment for Europe’s reluctance to adopt GM crops.
●The US embassy in Spain suggested that the US government and Spain should draw up a joint strategy to help boost the development of GM crops in Europe.
●The US State Department is trying to steer African countries towards acceptance of GM crops.
This strategy of exerting diplomatic pressure on national governments to adopt GM crops is undemocratic as it interferes with their ability to represent the wishes of their citizens. It is also inappropriate to use US taxpayers’ money to promote products owned by individual corporations
The Regulatory Process in Europe and The Rest of the World
Many governments, including those of the EU, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand, have an agency that assesses the safety of GM crops. Based on its assessment, the agency recommends approval or rejection of the crop for use in food or animal feed. The final decision is made by the government.
In Europe, the relevant agency is the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Typically the EU member states fail to agree on whether to approve a GM crop, with most voting not to approve it, but the vote does not achieve the “qualified majority” required to reject the GMO. The decision passes to the European Commission, which ignores the desires of the simple majority of the member states and approves the GMO.
Worldwide, safety assessments of GMOs by government regulatory agencies are not scientifically rigorous. As in the US, they do not carry out or commission their own tests on the GM crop. Instead, they make decisions regarding the safety of the GMO based on studies commissioned by the very same companies that stand to profit from the crop’s approval.
The problem with this system is that industry studies have an inbuilt bias. Published reviews evaluating studies assessing the safety/hazards of various products or technologies have shown that industry-sponsored or industry-affiliated studies are more likely to reach a favourable conclusion about the safety of the product than independent (non-industry-affiliated) studies.
Studies on GM crops and foods are no exception. Two published reviews of the scientific literature show that industry-sponsored or –affiliated studies are more likely than independent studies to claim safety for GMOs.
Another problem is the frequently unpublished status of the studies that companies submit to regulatory agencies. The fact that they are not published means that they are not readily available for scrutiny by the public or independent scientists.Unpublished studies fall into the category of so-called “grey literature” – unpublished documents of unknown reliability.
The peer-reviewed publication process, while far from perfect, is the best method that scientists have come up with to ensure reliability. Its strength lies in a multi-step quality control process:
●The editor of the journal sends the study to qualified scientists (“peers”) to evaluate. They give feedback, including any suggested revisions, which are passed on to the authors of the study.
●Based on the outcome of the peer review process, the editor publishes the study, rejects it, or offers to publish it with revisions by the authors.
●Once the study is published, it can be scrutinised and repeated (replicated) by other scientists. This repeat-testing is the cornerstone of scientific reliability, because if other scientists were to come up with different findings, this would challenge the findings of the original study.
The lack of availability of industry studies in the past has resulted in the public being deceived over the safety of GMOs. For example, industry’s raw data on Monsanto’s GM Bt maize variety MON863 (approved in the EU in 2005) were only forced into the open through court action by Greenpeace. Then independent scientists at the France-based research organisation CRIIGEN analysed the raw data and found that Monsanto’s own feeding trial on rats revealed serious health effects – including liver and kidney toxicity – that had been hidden from the public.
Since this case and perhaps as a result of it, transparency has improved in Europe and the public can obtain industry toxicology data on GMOs from EFSA on request. Only a small amount of information, such as the genetic sequence of the GMO, can be kept commercially confidential.
Similarly, the Australian and New Zealand food safety agency FSANZ makes industry toxicology data on GMOs available on the Internet. However, in the US, significant portions of the data submitted to regulators are classified as “commercially confidential” and are shielded from public scrutiny.
VI. PATENTS ON SEEDS AND SEEDS MONOPOLY
GMOs are intimately linked to seed patents. Infact, patenting of seeds is the real reason why industry is promoting GMOs.
Monopolies over seeds are being established through patents, mergers and cross licensing arrangement.
Monsanto now controls the world’s biggest seed company, Seminis, which has bought up Peto Seed, Bruinismo, Genecorp, Barhan, Horticere, Agroceres, Royal Suis, Choon Ang, Hungnong. Other seed acquisitions and joint ventures of Monsanto are – Asgrow, De Rinter, Monsoy, FT Sementes, Carma, Advanta Canola, China Seed, CNDK, ISG, Wertern, Protec, Calgene, Deltapine Land, Syngenta Global Cotton Division, Agracetus, Marneot, EID Parry Rallis, CDM Mandiyu, Ciagro, Renessan, Cargill, Terrazawa, Cargill International Seed Division, Hybritech, Jacob Hartz 1995, Agriprowheat, Cotton States, Limagrain Canada, Alypanticipacoes, First line, Mahyco, Corn States Intl, Corn States Hybrid, Agroeste, Seusako, Emergent Genetics, Mahendra, Indusem, Darhnfeldt, Paras, Unilever, Dekelb, Lustum, Farm Seed, Deklbayala, Ayala, Polon, Ecogen, PBIC.
Monsanto has cross-licensing arrangements with BASF, Bayer, Dupont, Sygenta and Dow. They have agreements to share patented genetically engineered seed traits with each other. The giant seed corporations are not competing with each other. They are competing with peasants and farmers over the control of the seed supply.
The combination of patents, genetic contamination and the spread of monocultures means that society is rapidly losing its seed freedom and food freedom. Farmers are losing their freedom to have seed and grow organic food free of the threat of contamination by GE crops. Citizens are losing their freedom to know what they are eating, and the choice of whether or not to eat GE free food
VI. HISTORY TIMELINE OF MONSANTO
>>Timeline: 1901 - 2009
Over its 108-year history, Monsanto Co (MON.N), the world’s largest seed company, has evolved from primarily an industrial chemical concern into a pure agricultural products company. Following is a timeline of the St. Louis, Missouri-based company’s history published in 11 November 2009.
*1901 - Original Monsanto founded as a maker of saccharine by John F. Queeny and named after his wife, Olga Monsanto Queeny.
*1920s and 1930s - Manufacturers sulfuric acid and other chemicals, including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), which are later implicated in reproductive, developmental and immune system disorders.
*1940s - Manufactures plastics and synthetic fabrics.
*1960s - Establishes agricultural division with focus on herbicides.
*1962-1971 - Becomes one of principal companies supplying herbicide known as Agent Orange to U.S. military for use in Vietnam War. Agent Orange is later linked to various health problems, including cancer.
*1976 - Commercializes Roundup herbicide, which goes on to be a top seller around the world.
*1982 - Some 2,000 people are relocated from Times Beach, Missouri, after area is contaminated with PCB by-product dioxin. Critics say a St.Louis-area Monsanto chemical plant was a source but company denies any connection.
*1994 - Wins regulatory approval for its first biotech product, a dairy cow hormone called Posilac.
*1996 - Introduces first biotech crop, Roundup Ready soybeans, which tolerate spraying of Roundup herbicide, and biotech cotton engineered to resist insect damage.
*1997 - Spins off its industrial chemical and fibers business into Solutia Inc amid complaints and legal claims about pollution from its plants. Introduces new biotech canola, cotton and corn, and buys foundation seed companies.
*1998 - Introduces Roundup Ready corn.
*2000-2002 - Restructures in deal with Pharmacia & Upjohn Inc; separates agricultural and chemicals businesses and becomes stand alonea gricultural company.
*2002-2003 - Jury finds Monsanto plant in Anniston, Alabama, polluted community with PCBs. Monsanto and Solutia agree to pay $600 million to settle claims brought by 20,000 Anniston residents of PCB ground and water contamination.
*2003 - Solutia files Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
*2004 - Monsanto forms American Seeds Inc holding company for corn and soy bean seed deals and begins brand acquisitions.
*2005 - Environmental, consumer groups question safety of Roundup Ready crops, say they create “super weeds,” among other problems.
*2006-2007 - Buys several regional seed companies and cotton seed leader Delta and Pine Land Co. Competitors allege Monsanto gaining seed industry monopoly.
*2008 - Acquires sugar cane breeding companies, and a Dutch hybrid seed company. Sells Posilac business amid consumer and food industry concerns about the dairy cow hormone supplement.
*2008-2009 - U.S. Department of Justice says it is looking into monopolistic power in the U.S.seed industry.
*2009 - Posts record net sales of $11.7 billion and net income of $2.1 billion for fiscal 2009. Announces project to improve the living conditions of 10,000 small cotton and corn farmers in 1,100 villages in India; donates cotton technology to academic researchers.
VIII. RECORD OF MONSANTO
*1969: Produces Agent Orange, which was used as a defoliant by the U.S. Government during the Vietnam War.
*1976: Monsanto produces Cycle-Safe, the world’s first plastic soft-drink bottle. The bottle, suspected of posing a cancer risk, is banned the following year by the Food and Drug Administration of the U.S.
*1986: Monsanto found guilty of negligently exposing a worker to benzene at its Chocolate Bayou Plant in Texas. It is forced to pay $100 million to the family of Wilbur Jack Skeen, a worker who died of leukaemia after repeated exposures.
*1986: Monsanto spends $50,000 against California’s anti-toxics initiative, Proposition 65. The initiative prohibits the discharge of chemicals known to cause cancer or birth defects into drinking water supplies.
*1987: Monsanto is one of the companies named in an $180 million settlement for Vietnam War veterans exposed to Agent Orange.
*1988: A federal jury finds Monsanto Co.’s subsidiary, G.D. Searle & Co., negligent in testing and marketing of its Copper 7 intra uterine birth control device (IUD). The verdict followed the unsealing of internal documents regarding safetyconcerns about the IUD, which was used bynearly 10 million women between 1974 and 1986.
*1990: EPA chemists allege fraud in Monsanto’s 1979 dioxin study which found their exposure to the chemical doesn’t increase cancer risks.
*1990: Monsanto spends more than $405,000 to defeat California’s pesticide regulation Proposition 128, known as the “Big Green”initiative. The initiative was aimed at phasing out the use of pesticides, including Monsanto’s product Alachlor, linked to cancer and to global warming.
*1991: Monsanto is fined $1.2 million for trying to conceal discharge of contaminated waste water into the Mystic River in Connecticut.
*1995: Monsanto is sued after allegedly supplying radioactive material for a controversial study which involved feeding radioactive iron to 829 pregnant women.
*1995: Monsanto ordered to pay $41.1 million to a waste management company in Texas due to concerns over hazardous waste dumping.
*1995: The Safe Shoppers Bible says that Monsanto’s Ortho Weed-B-Gon Lawn Weed Killer contains a known carcinogen, 2,4 D.
*2005: According to the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission, Monsanto bribed at least 140 Indonesian officials or their families to get Bt cotton approved without an environmental impact assessment (EIA). In 2005, Monsanto paid $1.5 million in fines to the US Justice Department for these bribes.
*2005: Six Government scientists including Dr. Margaret Haydon told the Canadian Senate Committee of Monsanto’s ‘offer’ of a bribe of between $1-2 million to the scientists from Health Canada if they approved the company’s GM bovine growth hormone (rbGH) (banned in many countries outside the US), without further study, and how notes and files critical of scientific data provided by Monsanto were stolen from a locked filing cabinet in her office. One FDA scientist arbitrarily increased the allowable levels of antibiotics in milk 100-fold inorder to facilitate the approval of rbGH. She had just arrived at the FDA from Monsanto.
*2005: The US Patent and Trademark Office rejected four key Monsanto patents related to GM crops that the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) challenged because the agricultural giant is using them to harass, intimidate, sue -and in some cases bankrupt - American farmers. Monsanto devotes more than $10 million per year to such anti-farmer activities, over alleged improper use of its patented seeds.
*2005: The Alabama Court Judgement in February 2002 best describes the sort of business that Monsanto is in. In 1966, court documents in a case concerning Anniston residents in the US showed that Monsanto managers discovered that fish dunked in a local creek turned belly-up within 10 seconds, spurting blood and shedding skin as dropped into boiling water. In 1969, they found fish in another creek with 7,500 timesthe legal PCB level. But they never told theirneighbours and concluded that “there is little object in going to expensive extremes in limiting discharges – we can’t afford to lose one dollar of business”.
In fact court documents revealed that the company with held evidence about the safety of their PCBs to the residents of the town that were being poisoned by their factory to keep their profitable dollars. On February 22, 2002, a court found Monsanto guilty on six counts of Negligence, Wantoness And Supression of the Truth, Nuisance, Trespass And Outrage. Outrage according to Alabama law is conduct “so outrageous in character and extreme indegree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency so as to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in civilized society.”
*2005: Monsanto omitted incriminating data altogether from its 1996 published study on GM soy beans. When the data was recovered later by an investigator, it showed that GM soy contained significantly lower levels of protein and other nutrients and toasted GM soy meal contained nearly twice the amount of a lectin (protein) that may block the body’s ability to assimilate other nutrients. Furthermore, the toasted GM soy contained as much as seventimes the amount of trypsin inhibitor, a major soy allergen.
Monsanto named their study: “The composition of glyphosate-tolerant soy bean seeds is equivalent to that of conventiona lsoy beans”!
In Europe, Monsanto refused to reveal the results of its own secret animal feeding studies, which revealed serious abnormalities to rats fed GM corn, citing CBI (Confidential Business Information) until forced to do so by a German Court. One of its Bt corn products (the only GM crop grown in the EU) was subsequently banned for planting in France and other EU countries based on the appraisal by Seralini of Monsanto’s own dossier.
*2009: A U.S. Federal Court ruled on 24th September, 2009, that USDA violated federal law by allowing Monsanto’s genetically engineered sugar beet on the market.
*2009: As is usually known it is common for U.S. MNC’s to bribe Indian officials to achieve their objectives.
IX. ACTIONS FOR DEMOCRACY
GMOs have become the testing site for our freedoms and democracy. They are defining the entire system of control of our food, based on an illusion.
Over the last two decades movements have grown around the world with creative actions and creative ideas that have helped people resist GMOs. This article is a distillation of the movement for building the food democracyt hat has become vital for our survival.
Below are actions that will contribute towards achieving this goal. Join the chorus in exposing the GMO companies and help build Food Democracy for all.
*Campaign to Disinvest from Monsanto: get your money out of Monsanto – at the personal level and at the institutional level. Don’t invest in financial institutions that invest in Monsanto. Start a campaign of disinvestment from Monsanto and lobby governments, banks, foundations and organizations to divest from Monsanto. The youth of Norway have already started the process to get Norway’s Oil Fund out of Monsanto.
www.combat-monsanto.co.uk, www.monsanto.no
*Boycott GMOs - Eat organic. Stop buying GMO products. One of the illusions created by the GMO companies is that organic cannot feed the world. This is scientifically not the case as pointed out in the IAASTD report and UN Special Rapporteur report on the right to food.
[www.gene-watch.org. www.organicconsumers.org/action.cfm]
*Demand Labeling of GMOs. Uphold your right to know what you eat. In a food democracy you have the right to know what you eat. On July 5, 2011, Codex Alimentarius, the international food safety body recognized the right of countries to label GMO foods. Thus (after 20 years of battle) the consumer right to be informed has been secured.
[www.consumersinternational.org]
*Put your money to support local ecological/organic food projects and invest in the future. Become partners with farmers who are producing organic food, join Community Supported Agriculture (CSAs), support a farmer’s market, and support organic farming in your region to build local food systems through creative innovative local financing. Start Gardens of Hope in your community, your backyard and in your schools. [http://www.organicgardeninfo.com]
*Campaign to get your village/town/region/country GMO-free. Become part of the world wide GMO-free movement. Write to your municipality, your town council, your regional government and your national government that you want your region to be GMO-free. Join the True Food Network to sign on to letters to Congress, governmental agencies, and other campaigns as well as receive action alerts for events across the U.S.
[http://truefoodnow.org]
*Help save seeds. Support groups that save seeds and are reclaiming seed as a commons. Create community seed banks, to save and exchange open pollinated varieties of seeds. Seed freedom is the first step in food freedom. Saving Our Seeds provides information, resources, and publications for gardeners, farmers, seed savers, and seed growers.
[http://www.savingourseeds.org]
Iceland, January 18 2013
~*MA.AR
Postscript:
I understand, from my scientific mentors and my reading, that there are two areas in which the relationship of causes and effects is highly complex: that which is internal to organisms, and that of the larger natural and human contexts – ultimately the world. In biotechnology, as in any technology affecting living systems, there is nothing perfectly predictable. What we do within living bodies and in the living world is never a simple mechanical procedure such as threading a needle or winding a watch. Mystery exists; unforeseen andunforeseeable consequences are common.
Biotechnology, as practiced so far, is bad science – a science willingly disdainful or ignorant of the ecological and human costs of previous scientific-technological revolutions (such as the introduction of chemistry into agriculture), and disdainful of criticism within the scientific disciplines. It is, moreover a science involved directly with product-development, marketing, and political lobbying on behalf of the products – and, therefore, is directly corruptible by personal self-interest and greed. For such a science to present itself in the guise of objectivity or philanthropy is, at best, hypocritical.
If biotechnology is not a sufficient, or even an adequate, answer to agricultural problems, then what do we need? My own answer is that we need a science of agriculture that is authentically new – a science that freely and generously accepts the farm, the local ecosystem, and the local community as contexts, and then devotes itself to the relationship between farming and its ecological and cultural supports.
*BIBLIOGRAPHY*
1. Pusztai A, Bardocz S, Ewen SWB. Genetically modified foods: Potential human health effects. In: D’Mello JPF, ed. Food Safety: Contaminants and Toxins. Wallingford, Oxon: CABI Publishing 2003:347–372.
2. Wilson AK, Latham JR, Steinbrecher RA. Transformation-induced mutations in transgenic plants: Analysis and biosafety implications. Biotechnol Genet Eng Rev. 2006; 23: 209–238.
3. Folta K. Cisgenics – transgenics without the transgene. Biofortified. 20 September 2010. www.biofortified.org/2010/09/cisgenics-transgenics-without-the-transgene/
4. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Safety Evaluation of Foods Derived by Modern Biotechnology: Concepts and Principles: OECD Publishing; 1993.
5. Tokar B. Deficiencies in federal regulatory oversight of genetically engineered crops. Institute for Social Ecology Biotechnology Project. June 2006. environmentalcommons.org/RegulatoryDeficiencies.html
6. Kahl L. Memorandum to Dr James Maryanski, FDA biotechnology coordinator, about the Federal Register document, “Statement of policy: Foods from genetically modified plants”. US Food & Drug Administration. 8 January 1992. www.biointegrity.org/FDAdocs/01/01.pdf
7. Bittman M. Why aren’t GMO foods labeled? New York Times. 15 February 2011. opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/why-arent-g-m-o-foods-labeled/
8. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) GMO Panel. Guidance on the environmental risk assessment of genetically modified plants. EFSA Journal. 2010; 8(11): 1879–1990.
9. African Biodiversity Network. www.africanbiodiversity.org.
10. GeneEthics Network/Madge. www.geneethics.org.
11. Argentina: las consecuencias inevitables de un modelo genocida y ecocida. Biodiversidad sustento y culturas Magazine, August 2009, available at: www.biodiversidadla.org/content/view/full/5087435
12. Review of potential environmental impacts of transgenic glyphosate-resistant soybean in Brazil. Cerdeira et al, 2007, available at: www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a779480992.
13. Dr. Charles Benbrook, Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use in the United States: The FirstThirteen Years,” The Organic Center, Nov. 2009, p. 47 & Supplemental Table 7, www.organic-center.org/science.pest.php?action=view&report_id=159.
14. Olivier De Schutter, Food Commodities Speculation and Food Price Crises, issue brief, Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations, 2010, p. 1-2, www.srfood.org/images/stories/pdf/otherdocuments/20102309_briefing_note_02_en.pdf(accessed 18 January 2011)
15. documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/BiotechLobbying-web.pdf
16. How to Avoid Foods Made with Genetically Modified Organisms [GMOs]: http://truefoodnow.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/cfs-shoppers-guide.pdf
17. Non GMO Verified Products: www.nongmoproject.org/find-non-gmo/search-participating-products/
18. The Revolving Door Between Monsanto and The U.S Government: www.journaloftheearth.com/wpjote/wp-content/themes/jotetheme1/Monsanto-Revolving-Door.pdf
