The Case for A
GM-Free Sustainable World
Executive Summary
Why GM Free?Press Release
The Institute of
Science in Society, PO Box 32097, London NW1 OXR
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/
1.
GM crops failed to deliver promised benefits
The
consistent finding from independent research and
on-farm surveys since 1999 is that GM crops have
failed to deliver the promised benefits of
significantly increasing yields or reducing
herbicide and pesticide use. GM crops have cost
the United States an estimated $12 billion in
farm subsidies, lost sales and product recalls
due to transgenic contamination. Massive failures
in Bt cotton of up to 100% were reported in
India.
Biotech
corporations have suffered rapid decline since
2000, and investment advisors forecast no future
for the agricultural sector. Meanwhile worldwide
resistance to GM has reached a climax in 2002
when Zambia refused GM maize in food aid despite
the threat of famine.
2.
GM crops posing escalating problems on the farm
The
instability of transgenic lines has plagued the
industry from the beginning, and this may be
responsible for a string of major crop failures.
A review in 1994 stated, "While there are
some examples of plants which show stable
expression of a transgene these may prove to be
the exceptions to the rule. In an informal survey
of over 30 companies involved in the
commercialisation of transgenic crop
plants….almost all of the respondents
indicated that they had observed some level of
transgene inaction. Many respondents indicated
that most cases of transgene inactivation never
reach the literature."
Triple
herbicide-tolerant oilseed rape volunteers that
have combined transgenic and non-transgenic
traits are now widespread in Canada. Similar
multiple herbicide-tolerant volunteers and weeds
have emerged in the United States. In the United
States, glyphosate-tolerant weeds are plaguing GM
cotton and soya fields, and atrazine, one of the
most toxic herbicides, has had to be used with
glufosinate-tolerant GM maize.
Bt
biopesticide traits are simultaneously
threatening to create superweeds and Bt-
resistant pests.
3.
Extensive transgenic contamination unavoidable
Extensive
transgenic contamination has occurred in maize
landraces growing in remote regions in Mexico
despite an official moratorium that has been in
place since 1998. High levels of contamination
have since been found in Canada. In a test of 33
certified seed stocks, 32 were found
contaminated.
New
research shows that transgenic pollen, wind-blown
and deposited elsewhere, or fallen directly to
the ground, is a major source of transgenic
contamination. Contamination is generally
acknowledged to be unavoidable, hence there
can be no co-existence of transgenic and
non-transgenic crops.
4.
GM crops not safe
Contrary
to the claims of proponents, GM crops have not
been proven safe. The regulatory framework was
fatally flawed from the start. It was based on an
anti-precautionary approach
designed to expedite product approval at the
expense of safety considerations. The principle
of ‘substantial equivalence’, on which
risk assessment is based, is intended to be vague
and ill-defined, thereby giving companies
complete licence in claiming transgenic products
‘substantially equivalent’ to
non-transgenic products, and hence
‘safe’.
5.
GM food raises serious safety concerns
There
have been very few credible studies on GM food
safety. Nevertheless, the available findings
already give cause for concern. In the still only
systematic investigation on GM food ever carried
out in the world, ‘growth factor-like’
effects were found in the stomach and small
intestine of young rats that were not fully
accounted for by the transgene product, and were
hence attributable to the transgenic process or
the transgenic construct, and may hence
be general to all GM food. There have
been at least two other, more limited, studies
that also raised serious safety concerns.
6.
Dangerous gene products are incorporated into
crops
Bt
proteins, incorporated into 25% of all transgenic
crops worldwide, have been found harmful to a
range of non-target insects. Some of them are
also potent immunogens and allergens. A team of
scientists have cautioned against releasing Bt
crops for human use.
Food
crops are increasingly used to produce
pharmaceuticals and drugs, including cytokines
known to suppress the immune system, induce
sickness and central nervous system toxicity;
interferon alpha, reported to cause dementia,
neurotoxicity and mood and cognitive side
effects; vaccines; and viral sequences such as
the ‘spike’ protein gene of the pig
coronavirus, in the same family as the SARS virus
linked to the current epidemic. The glycoprotein
gene gp120 of the AIDS virus
HIV-1, incorporated into GM maize as a
‘cheap, edible oral vaccine’, serves as
yet another biological time-bomb, as it can
interfere with the immune system and recombine
with viruses and bacteria to generate new and
unpredictable pathogens.
7.
Terminator crops spread male sterility
Crops
engineered with ‘suicide’ genes for
male sterility have been promoted as a means of
‘containing’, i.e., preventing, the
spread of transgenes. In reality, the hybrid
crops sold to farmers spread both male sterile
suicide genes as well herbicide tolerance genes via
pollen.
8.
Broad-spectrum herbicides highly toxic to humans
and other species
Glufosinate
ammonium and glyphosate are used with the
herbicide-tolerant transgenic crops that
currently account for 75% of all transgenic crops
worldwide. Both are systemic metabolic poisons
expected to have a wide range of harmful effects,
and these have been confirmed.
Glufosinate
ammonium is linked to neurological, respiratory,
gastrointestinal and haematological toxicities,
and birth defects in humans and mammals. It is
toxic to butterflies and a number of beneficial
insects, also to the larvae of clams and oysters,
Daphnia and some freshwater
fish, especially the rainbow trout. It inhibits
beneficial soil bacteria and fungi, especially
those that fix nitrogen.
Glyphosate
is the most frequent cause of complaints and
poisoning in the UK. Disturbances of many body
functions have been reported after exposures at
normal use levels.
Glyphosate
exposure nearly doubled the risk of late
spontaneous abortion, and children born to users
of glyphosate had elevated neurobehavioral
defects. Glyphosate caused retarded development
of the foetal skeleton in laboratory rats.
Glyphosate inhibits the synthesis of steroids,
and is genotoxic in mammals, fish and frogs.
Field dose exposure of earthworms caused at least
50 percent mortality and significant intestinal
damage among surviving worms. Roundup caused cell
division dysfunction that may be linked to human
cancers.
The
known effects of both glufosinate and glyphosate
are sufficiently serious for all further uses of
the herbicides to be halted.
9.
Genetic engineering creates super-viruses
By
far the most insidious dangers of genetic
engineering are inherent to the process itself,
which greatly enhances the scope and probability
of horizontal gene transfer and recombination,
the main route to creating viruses and bacteria
that cause disease epidemics. This was
highlighted, in 2001, by the
‘accidental’ creation of a killer mouse
virus in the course of an apparently innocent
genetic engineering experiment.
Newer
techniques, such as DNA shuffling are allowing
geneticists to create in a matter of minutes in
the laboratory millions of recombinant viruses
that have never existed in billions of years of
evolution. Disease-causing viruses and bacteria
and their genetic material are the predominant
materials and tools for genetic engineering, as
much as for the intentional creation of
bio-weapons.
10.
Transgenic DNA in food taken up by bacteria in
human gut
There
is already experimental evidence that transgenic
DNA from plants has been taken up by bacteria in
the soil and in the gut of human volunteers.
Antibiotic resistance marker genes can spread
from transgenic food to pathogenic bacteria,
making infections very difficult to treat.
11.
Transgenic DNA and cancer
Transgenic
DNA is known to survive digestion in the gut and
to jump into the genome of mammalian cells,
raising the possibility for triggering cancer.
The
possibility cannot be excluded that feeding GM
products such as maize to animals also carries
risks, not just for the animals but also for
human beings consuming the animal products.
12.
CaMV 35S promoter increases horizontal gene
transfer
Evidence
suggests that transgenic constructs with the CaMV
35S promoter might be especially unstable and
prone to horizontal gene transfer and
recombination, with all the attendant hazards:
gene mutations due to random insertion, cancer,
reactivation of dormant viruses and generation of
new viruses. This promoter is present in most GM
crops being grown commercially today.
13.
A history of misrepresentation and suppression of
scientific evidence
There
has been a history of misrepresentation and
suppression of scientific evidence, especially on
horizontal gene transfer. Key experiments failed
to be performed, or were performed badly and then
misrepresented. Many experiments were not
followed up, including investigations
on whether the CaMV 35S promoter is responsible
for the ‘growth-factor-like’ effects
observed in young rats fed GM potatoes.
In
conclusion, GM crops have failed to deliver the
promised benefits and are posing escalating
problems on the farm. Transgenic contamination is
now widely acknowledged to be unavoidable, and
hence there can be no co-existence of GM and
non-GM agriculture. Most important of all, GM
crops have not been proven safe. On the contrary,
sufficient evidence has emerged to raise serious
safety concerns, that if ignored could result in
irreversible damage to health and the
environment. GM crops should be firmly rejected
now.
Why
Sustainable Agriculture?
1.
Higher productivity and yields, especially in the
Third World
Some
8.98 million farmers have adopted sustainable
agriculture practices on 28.92 million hectares
in Asia, Latin America and Africa. Reliable data
from 89 projects show higher productivity and
yields: 50-100% increase in yield for rainfed
crops, and 5-10% for irrigated crops. Top
successes include Burkina Faso, which turned a
cereal deficit of 644 kg per year to an annual
surplus of 153 kg; Ethiopia, where 12 500
households enjoyed 60% increase in crop yields;
and Honduras and Guatemala, where 45 000 families
increased yields from 400-600 kg/ha to 2 000-2
500 kg/ha.
Long-term
studies in industrialised countries show yields
for organic comparable to conventional
agriculture, and sometimes higher.
2.
Better soils
Sustainable
agricultural practices tend to reduce soil
erosion, as well as improve soil physical
structure and water-holding capacity, which are
crucial in averting crop failures during periods
of drought.
Soil
fertility is maintained or increased by various
sustainable agriculture practices. Studies show
that soil organic matter and nitrogen levels are
higher in organic than in conventional fields.
Biological
activity has also been found to be higher in
organic soils. There are more earthworms,
arthropods, mycorrhizal and other fungi, and
micro-organisms, all of which are beneficial for
nutrient recycling and suppression of disease.
3.
Cleaner environment
There
is little or no polluting chemical-input with
sustainable agriculture. Moreover, research
suggests that less nitrate and phosphorus are
leached to groundwater from organic soils.
Better
water infiltration rates are found in organic
systems. Therefore, they are less prone to
erosion and less likely to contribute to water
pollution from surface runoff.
4.
Reduced pesticides and no increase in pests
Organic
farming prohibits routine pesticide application.
Integrated pest management has cut the number of
pesticide sprays in Vietnam from 3.4 to one per
season, in Sri Lanka from 2.9 to 0.5 per season,
and in Indonesia from 2.9 to 1.1 per season.
Research
showed no increase in crop losses due to pest
damage, despite the withdrawal of synthetic
insecticides in Californian tomato production.
Pest
control is achievable without pesticides,
reversing crop losses, as for example, by using
‘trap crops’ to attract stem borer, a
major pest in East Africa. Other benefits of
avoiding pesticides arise from utilising the
complex inter-relationships between species in an
ecosystem.
5.
Supporting biodiversity and using diversity
Sustainable
agriculture promotes agricultural biodiversity,
which is crucial for food security and rural
livelihoods. Organic farming can also support
much greater biodiversity, benefiting species
that have significantly declined.
Biodiverse
systems are more productive than monocultures.
Integrated farming systems in Cuba are 1.45 to
2.82 times more productive than monocultures.
Thousands of Chinese rice farmers have doubled
yields and nearly eliminated the most devastating
disease simply by mixed planting of two
varieties.
Soil
biodiversity is enhanced by organic practices,
bringing beneficial effects such as recovery and
rehabilitation of degraded soils, improved soil
structure and water infiltration.
6.
Environmentally and economically sustainable
Research
on apple production systems ranked the organic
system first in environmental and economic
sustainability, the integrated system second and
the conventional system last. Organic apples were
most profitable due to price premiums, quicker
investment return and fast recovery of costs.
A
Europe-wide study showed that organic farming
performs better than conventional farming in the
majority of environmental indicators. A review by
the Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations (FAO) concluded that well-managed
organic agriculture leads to more favourable
conditions at all environmental
levels.
7.
Ameliorating climate change by reducing direct
& indirect energy use
Organic
agriculture uses energy much more efficiently and
greatly reduces CO2 emissions
compared with conventional agriculture, both with
respect to direct energy consumption in fuel and
oil and indirect consumption in synthetic
fertilizers and pesticides.
Sustainable
agriculture restores soil organic matter content,
increasing carbon sequestration below ground,
thereby recovering an important carbon sink.
Organic systems have shown significant ability to
absorb and retain carbon, raising the possibility
that sustainable agriculture practices can help
reduce the impact of global warming.
Organic
agriculture is likely to emit less nitrous
dioxide (N2O), another
important greenhouse gas and also a cause of
stratospheric ozone depletion.
8.
Efficient, profitable production
Any
yield reduction in organic agriculture is more
than offset by ecological and efficiency gains.
Research has shown that the organic approach can
be commercially viable in the long-term,
producing more food per unit of energy or
resources.
Data
show that smaller farms produce far more per unit
area than the larger farms characteristic of
conventional farming. Though the yield per unit
area of one crop may be lower on a small farm
than on a large monoculture, the total output per
unit area, often composed of more than a dozen
crops and various animal products, can be far
higher.
Production
costs for organic farming are often lower than
for conventional farming, bringing equivalent or
higher net returns even without organic price
premiums. When price premiums are factored in,
organic systems are almost always more
profitable.
9.
Improved food security and benefits to local
communities
A
review of sustainable agriculture projects in
developing countries showed that average food
production per household increased by 1.71 tonnes
per year (up 73%) for 4.42 million farmers on
3.58 million hectares, bringing food security and
health benefits to local communities.
Increasing
agricultural productivity has been shown to also
increase food supplies and raise incomes, thereby
reducing poverty, increasing access to food,
reducing malnutrition and improving health and
livelihoods.
Sustainable
agricultural approaches draw extensively on
traditional and indigenous knowledge, and place
emphasis on the farmers’ experience and
innovation. This thereby utilises appropriate,
low-cost and readily available local resources as
well as improves farmers’ status and
autonomy, enhancing social and cultural relations
within local communities.
Local
means of sale and distribution can generate more
money for the local economy. For every £1 spent
at an organic box scheme from Cusgarne Organics
(UK), £2.59 is generated for the local economy;
but for every £1 spent at a supermarket, only
£1.40 is generated for the local economy.
10.
Better food quality for health
Organic
food is safer, as organic farming prohibits
routine pesticide and herbicide use, so harmful
chemical residues are rarely found.
Organic
production also bans the use of artificial food
additives such as hydrogenated fats, phosphoric
acid, aspartame and monosodium glutamate, which
have been linked to health problems as diverse as
heart disease, osteoporosis, migraines and
hyperactivity.
Studies
have shown that, on average, organic food has
higher vitamin C, higher mineral levels and
higher plant phenolics – plant compounds
that can fight cancer and heart disease, and
combat age-related neurological dysfunctions
– and significantly less nitrates, a toxic
compound.
Sustainable
agricultural practices have proven beneficial in
all aspects relevant to health and the
environment. In addition, they bring food
security and social and cultural well-being to
local communities everywhere. There is an urgent
need for a comprehensive global shift to all
forms of sustainable agriculture.press-release@i-sis.org.uk
|
