.
'GMO Myths and Truths' — Report released by genetic engineers
By Anne Sewell
Jul 5, 2012 in Health
In a groundbreaking report, two genetic engineers
explain in detail why GMOs are not good for human health or the environment.
The new report has been released today, July 5, and
is titled “GMO Myths and Truths”.
The report presents a large body of peer-reviewed
scientific and other authoritative evidence of the hazards to health and the
environment posed by genetically engineered crops and organisms (GMOs).
While there are many campaigners against GMOs in general, the
initiative for this report came not from campaigners, but from two genetic
engineers, who believe there are good scientific reasons to be wary of GM crops
and food.
One of the genetic engineers involved in the report
is Dr. Michael Antoniou
of King’s College London School of Medicine in the U.K.
Dr Antoniou said: “GM crops are promoted on the basis
of ambitious claims – that they are safe to eat, environmentally beneficial,
increase yields, reduce reliance on pesticides, and can help solve world
hunger."
“I felt what was needed was a collation of the
evidence that addresses the technology from a scientific point of view."
“Research studies show that genetically modified
crops have harmful effects on laboratory animals in feeding trials and on the
environment during cultivation. They have increased the use of pesticides and
have failed to increase yields. Our report concludes that there are safer and
more effective alternatives to meeting the world’s food needs.”
The second author of the report is Dr. John Fagan, a former genetic engineer,
who in 1994 returned $614,000 in grant money to the National Institutes of
Health, due to concerns about the safety and ethics of the technology. Dr. Fagan
then founded a GMO testing company.
He says, “Crop genetic engineering as practiced
today is a crude, imprecise, and outmoded technology. It can create unexpected
toxins or allergens in foods and affect their nutritional value. Recent
advances point to better ways of using our knowledge of genomics to improve
food crops, that do not involve GM."
“Over 75% of all GM crops are engineered to
tolerate being sprayed with herbicide. This has led to the spread of
herbicide-resistant super weeds and has resulted in massively increased exposure
of farmers and communities to these toxic chemicals. Epidemiological studies
suggest a link between herbicide use and birth defects and cancer."
“These findings fundamentally challenge the utility
and safety of GM crops, but the biotech industry uses its influence to block
research by independent scientists and uses its powerful PR machine to
discredit independent scientists whose findings challenge this approach.”
The third author of the report is Claire Robinson,
who is research director of Earth Open Source.
Robinson said, “The GM industry is trying to change
our food supply in far-reaching and potentially dangerous ways. We all need to
inform ourselves about what is going on and ensure that we – not biotechnology
companies – keep control of our food system and crop seeds.
“We hope our report will contribute to a broader
understanding of GM crops and the sustainable alternatives that are already
working successfully for farmers and communities."
An extract from the report reads:
Genetically modified (GM) crops are promoted on the basis of a range of far-reaching claims from the GM crop industry and its supporters. They say that GM crops:
- Are an extension of natural breeding and do not
pose different risks from naturally bred crops
- Are safe to eat and can be more nutritious than
naturally bred crops
- Are strictly regulated for safety
- Increase crop yields
- Reduce pesticide use
- Benefit farmers and make their lives easier
- Bring economic benefits
- Benefit the environment
- Can help solve problems caused by climate change
- Reduce energy use
- Will help feed the world.
However, a large and growing body of scientific and
other authoritative evidence shows that these claims are not true. On the
contrary, evidence presented in this report indicates that GM crops:
- Are laboratory-made, using technology that is
totally different from natural breeding methods, and pose different risks from
non-GM crops
- Can be toxic, allergenic or less nutritious than
their natural counterparts
- Are not adequately regulated to ensure safety
- Do not increase yield potential
- Do not reduce pesticide use but increase it
- Create serious problems for farmers, including
herbicide-tolerant “superweeds”, compromised soil quality, and increased
disease susceptibility in crops
- Have mixed economic effects
- Harm soil quality, disrupt ecosystems, and reduce
biodiversity
- Do not offer effective solutions to climate
change
- Are as energy-hungry as any other
chemically-farmed crops
- Cannot solve the problem of world hunger but
distract from its real causes – poverty, lack of access to food and,
increasingly, lack of access to land to grow it on.
Based on the evidence presented in this report,
there is no need to take risks with GM crops when effective, readily available,
and sustainable solutions to the problems that GM technology is claimed to
address already exist. Conventional plant breeding, in some cases helped by
safe modern technologies like gene mapping and marker assisted selection,
continues to outperform GM in producing high-yield, drought-tolerant, and pest-
and disease-resistant crops that can meet our present and future food needs.
Highlights
Food prices remain high even after prices of internationally traded food decreased between February and June 2013, the third consecutive quarterly decline.
Higher production, declining imports and increasing stocks pushed down export prices.
Uncertain weather conditions and domestic policy decisions still
warrant close monitoring going forward.
Prices
of internationally traded food declined for the third consecutive quarter since
their historical peak in August of 2012. Increased production, declining
imports and increasing stocks are exerting downward pressure on export prices,
but international prices remain tight for maize.
Prices remain high and
with recent price increases in May and June, uncertainties surrounding unstable
weather conditions and domestic policy decisions among key food producers
warrant close scrutiny.
Domestic policies worth
watching include public procurement policies, but also consumer price
subsidies, which, far from being a thing of the past, continue to be used –
even though subsidies often bring meager benefits to the poor, high fiscal
costs, corruption episodes and unproven nutritional effects.
Food
Price Watch, July 2013
Mystery of the disappearing bees: Solved!
By Richard Schiffman
APRIL 9, 2012
If it were a novel, people would criticize the plot for
being too far-fetched – thriving colonies disappear overnight without leaving a
trace, the bodies of the victims are never found. Only in this case, it’s not
fiction: It’s what’s happening to fully a third of commercial beehives, over a
million colonies every year. Seemingly healthy communities fly off never to
return. The queen bee and mother of the hive is abandoned to starve and die.
Thousands of scientific sleuths have been on this case for the last
15 years trying to determine why our honey bees are disappearing in such
alarming numbers. “This is the biggest general
threat to our food supply,” according
to Kevin Hackett, the national program leader for the U.S. Department of
Agriculture’s bee and pollination program.
Until
recently, the evidence was inconclusive on the cause of the mysterious “colony
collapse disorder” (CCD) that threatens the future of beekeeping worldwide. But
three new studies point an accusing finger at a culprit that many have
suspected all along, a class of pesticides known
as neonicotinoids.
In
the U.S.
Research published last
month in the prestigious
journal Science shows
that neonics are absorbed by the plants’ vascular system and contaminate the
pollen and nectar that bees encounter on their rounds. They are a nerve poison
that disorient their insect victims and appear to damage the homing ability of
bees, which may help to account for their mysterious failure to make it back to
the hive.
Another study published in the American Chemical Society’s Environmental
Science and Technology journal
implicated neonic-containing dust released into the air at planting time with
“lethal effects compatible with colony losses phenomena observed by
beekeepers.”
But
scientists believe that exposure to toxic pesticides is only one factor that
has led to the decline of honey bees in recent years. The destruction and
fragmentation of bee habitats, as a result of land development and the spread
of monoculture agriculture, deprives pollinators of their diverse natural food
supply. This has already led to the extinction of a number of wild bee species.
The planting of genetically modified organism (GMO) crops – some of which now
contain toxic insecticides within their genetic structure – may also be
responsible for poisoning bees and weakening
their immune systems.
Every
spring millions of bee colonies are trucked to the Central Valley of California
and other agricultural areas to replace the wild pollinators, which have all
but disappeared in many parts of the country. These bees are routinely fed
high-fructose corn syrup instead of their own nutritious honey. And in an
effort to boost productivity, the queens are now artificially inseminated,
which has led to a disturbing decline in bee genetic diversity. Bees are also
dusted with chemical poisons to control mites and other pathogens that have
flourished in the overcrowded commercial colonies.
In
1923, Rudolph Steiner, the German founder of biodynamic agriculture, a
precursor of the modern organic movement, predicted that within a hundred years
artificial industrial techniques used to breed honey bees would lead to the species’ collapse. His
prophecy was right on target!
Honey
bees have been likened to the canaries in the coal mine. Their vanishing is
nature’s way of telling us that conditions have deteriorated in the world
around us. Bees won’t survive for long if we don’t change our commercial
breeding practices and remove deadly toxins from their environment. A massive
pollinator die-off would imperil world food supplies and devastate ecosystems
that depend on them. The loss of these creatures might rival climate change in
its impact on life on earth.
Still,
this is a disaster that does not need to happen. Germany
and France
“Past
a certain point, we can’t make nature conform to our industrial model. The
collapse of beehives is a warning – and the cleverness of a few beekeepers in
figuring out how to work with bees not as masters but as partners offers a
clear-eyed kind of hope for many of our ecological dilemmas.”
.
