|
|
What would happen if a USDA scientist discovered that one of the most commonly used pesticides on the planet with a reputation for having saved
millions of tons of US soil from erosion was — rather than a soil savior — a soil killer?
[...]
This news came to the fore thanks to a recently published must-read article from Reuters on how government
regulators are "dropping the ball" on agricultural biotechnology. It begins with the story of USDA scientist Dr. Robert Kremer. Kremer has spent the last fifteen
years looking at Monsanto's blockbuster broad-spectrum herbicide glyphosate (aka RoundUp), the most commonly used pesticide in the world and the companion to
Monsanto's possibly monopolistic RoundupReady lines of genetically engineered seeds.
While exact figures are a closely guarded secret thanks to the USDA's refusal to update its pesticide use database after 2007, estimates suggest upwards of 200 million pounds of glyphosate were dumped on
fields and farms in the US in 2008 alone. That's almost double the amount used in 2005.
Glyphosate has a reputation as the "safest" of all the agricultural herbicides and has become the primary means of weed control in industrial
agriculture. While being the best of an extremely nasty bunch may be the faintest of praise, the USDA relies on this perception, which has been fueled by
industry and government research indicating that the chemical dissipates quickly and shows low toxicity (as poisons go, that is) to humans.
The claim of "millions of tons of soil saved" relates to the soil that would have otherwise been lost to erosion without
glyphosate's central role in chemical no-till farming techniques. Indeed, experts such as Dr. Michael Shannon, a program director at
the USDA's Agricultural Research Service, as well as other USDA scientists, make this anti-erosion claim the core argument in favor of the widespread use of the
chemical.
Even so, glyphosate has been under attack from several quarters of late. Research indicates that, while glyphosate on its own
may be relatively "safe," it is actually quite toxic in combination with the other (supposedly
"inert") ingredients in commercial preparations of the herbicide, i.e. the stuff that farmers actually spray on their fields.
And of course, there is the frightening spread of superweeds that glyphosate can no longer kill. It's to the point that thousands
of acres in the South have been abandoned to resistant strains of giant pigweed. [...] [Read More] |
Foreword: Mae-Wan Ho, PhD
It has been 16 years since the first genetically modified (GM) crop — Flavr Savr tomato for delayed ripening — was approved for commercial growing in the
USA. It was also the year that I became a "science activist", on realising how science itself was falling prey to corporate manipulation. Flavr Savr was soon
withdrawn as a failure; but it was only a decoy, as agbiotech corporations like Monsanto were after much bigger game.
Genetic modification actually focussed on three major crops and two main traits: herbicide-tolerance (HT) due to glyphosate-insensitive form of the
enzyme targeted by the herbicide — 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS) — derived from the soil bacterium Agrobacterium tumefaciens,
and insect-resistance due to one or more toxins derived from another soil bacterium Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis).
Commercial planting of these crops began around 1997 in the USA, the heartland of GM crops, and increased rapidly thereafter. Though, thanks to
strong resistance from informed citizens in Europe and other parts of the world, GM crops have remained confined, to this day, to less than 3 percent of global
agricultural land, with 79 percent of the area planted concentrated in the USA, Argentina and Brazil.1
In the USA, GM crops now occupy 85-91 percent of the area planted with the three major crops, soybean, corn and cotton. And it is the USA that's now facing
an ecological meltdown due to GM crops.2
HT crops encouraged the use of herbicides sold as a package with the crop, resulting in herbicide-resistant weeds that demand yet more herbicides. But the
increasing use of deadly herbicide and herbicide mixtures has failed to stall the advance of the dreaded palmer superweed that stops combine harvesters and
break hand tools. At the same time, secondary pests such as the tarnished plant bug, against which Bt toxin is powerless, became the single most damaging insect
for US cotton. The US corn belt, meanwhile, has been ravaged by yet another secondary pest, the western bean cutworm (Striacosta albicosta).3
Farmers are at a loss to deal with the crisis. They are being advised by misguided academics to use an armoury of more deadly herbicides and insecticides
that accomplishes little else than make bigger profits for the same agbiotech companies that sell them the offending GM crops. Those farmers that have held
out against planting GM crops, or want to stop planting them, are finding it increasingly difficult, if not impossible to buy non-GM seeds, as corporations
like Monsanto have been consolidating their monopoly on seeds in the mean time.4 In addition, they are offering new GM varieties with up to eight "stacked'
traits to keep farmers on the transgenic treadmill.5
The situation is bad enough for farmers in the United States; but it has been deadly in India, where farmers do not have any state subsidies, unlike their
counterparts in the USA, and many are already caught in a cycle of indebtedness from the "green revolution" agriculture that depends on high chemical inputs.
Bt cotton was approved for commercial planting in India in 2003, and spread rapidly throughout the country despite strenuous protests from farmers and
consumers. Bt cotton accelerated farm suicides by increasing farmers' burden of debt. Crop failures or bad harvests for two successive seasons on top of the
exorbitant cost of GM seeds would be enough to build up debt to a level that drives farmers to take their own lives. As in the USA, Bt cotton soon created
secondary and new pests, as well as resistant pests, new diseases, and above all, soils so depleted in nutrients and beneficial microorganisms that they may
cease to support the growth of any crop in a decade.6,7
The Bt cotton crisis in India has galvanised the entire nation to oppose the introduction of Monsanto's Bt brinjal (egg-plant). In response, Indian
Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh carried out a nation-wide consultation, at the end of which, he announced a moratorium on commercial planting until further
health and environmental safety tests can be conducted.8 Ramesh achieved the status of a national hero for standing up to intense pressure from the USA and
its agents that had already manipulated India's national Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) to approve commercial planting of Bt brinjal.9
Ramesh pointedly renamed GEAC to Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee on announcing the moratorium.
Along with the unfolding ecological disasters is accumulating evidence of adverse health impacts, both of which have been predicted by critics right from
the start, as described in my book, Genetic Engineering Dream or Nightmare , first published in 1997.10 The health hazards, both inherent to the
genetic modification technology and specific to transgenes involved, have been corroborated both by the limited number of experiments independent scientists
are able to conduct in the laboratory with inadequate support, and by experiences of farm and other workers in the fields, as documented in a dossier
of reports from the Institute of Science in Society.11 Sicknesses and deaths have occurred in fields where people and livestock were exposed to GM crops. In
the laboratory, whenever and wherever independent scientists perform feeding trials, they find increased deaths, sterility, stunting, and a range of organ
dysfunction, regardless of the transgenic crop or transgenes involved, and in a variety of animal species. The same disturbing findings emerge when independent
scientists have been able to reanalyse raw data submitted by companies for transgenic varieties that have been approved as "substantially equivalent" to
and hence as safe as the non-GM counterparts. This applies to the data submitted for Bt brinjal that gained commercial approval12 before the moratorium was
imposed.
In his detailed report announcing the Bt brinjal moratorium7, Ramesh highlighted organic non-pesticide management as superior to the Bt technology,
for it eliminates the use of pesticides altogether. It is clear that for India, as for the United States, the only rational exit from the ecological crisis is
to switch comprehensively to organic, non-GM agriculture. [...A]way from GM crops to a carbon-absorbing agriculture and a truly green circular economy that can deliver health,
wealth and prosperity [...]
|
|
|
Last Updated: 26 May 2010 |
Genetically Modified Foods
Adverse effects and unpredictable consequences.
|
This page presents selected videos, excerpts, notes, references, and clinical studies dealing with the unpredictable consequences and adverse effects of transgenic organisms
on human health, biodiversity, and socioeconomic well-being. While proponents of genetic modification may discount or otherwise interpret the evidence of such problems on the basis of peer-reviewed
science, the fact of the matter is that current applications of genetic engineering already exceed the science. Tests of genetically modified products are
usually conducted by the producers themselves, who have a vested economic interest in the outcome; neither third-party tests nor long-term studies have been conducted to evaluate the safety
of these products.
A transgenic organism, commonly called a Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) or Genetically Engineered Organism (GEO), is an organism that has been modified by human
intention, with the insertion of a foreign, homogeneous or synthesized sequence of DNA (Hartweek LM, 1997). Transgenic organisms are
[m]ade with techniques that alter the molecular or cell biology of an organism by means that are not possible under natural conditions or processes. Genetic engineering includes
recombinant DNA, cell fusion, micro- and macro-encapsulation, gene deletion and doubling, introducing a foreign gene, and changing the positions of genes. [...]
Selected Internet Resources on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) provides a useful
overview in this brief history (O'Toole E., University of North Texas, 2010):
Genetically modified organisms [GMOs] are organisms which have had foreign deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) inserted into their DNA. The resulting organisms are also referred
to as being genetically modified (GM), genetically engineered (GE) or transgenic. The foreign DNA enables the organisms to produce non-native proteins, which give the organisms new and desired
characteristics. An example of a GMO would be a strain of corn that produces a foreign protein which confers protection against a species of insect. Techniques developed in the field of molecular
biology have made it possible to genetically modify plants, animals and microorganisms, such as bacteria.
Scientists began creating GMOs in the 1970s, but the resulting organisms did not attract widespread attention because their use was limited to scientific research, and not consumer goods
[see Historical Events in Biotechnology; and see other biotech timelines]. The discovery of restriction enzymes in 1970 made genetic
engineering possible. These proteins recognize a sequence in DNA and make a staggered cut in the molecule, which leaves one strand longer than the other. The "sticky" longer strand becomes a site
where foreign DNA with a matching cut can be inserted. Common GMOs in the science laboratory are bacteria that have had foreign DNA, for example, mouse DNA, introduced into them for the purpose
of creating large amounts of the foreign DNA or protein for study.
GMOs began to gain public attention when they were applied to pharmacology and agriculture in the 1980s1,2 [...] By the early 1980s, GE bacteria were
being used to produce drugs for humans.3 The first GE drug approved by the U.S. Federal Drug and Food Administration for human use was Humulin, an insulin drug produced by Genentech. [...]
The results of genetic engineering are essentially unpredictable and, whether the intended result is achieved or not, unintended "nontarget" effects will also occur (Holdrege C., 2008). Introduction of a transgenic organism into
an agricultural environment can directly and indirectly impact all life within that environment, resulting in a cascade of interconnected events that manifest over time. For example, reliance on genetically modified cotton that produces a toxin from the bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) to poison its main pest has led
to a boom in the numbers of other insects, according to a ten-year study in northern China (Jane Qiu, Nature News, 13.05.10).
Abstract
Long-term ecological effects of transgenic Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) crops on non-target pests have received limited attention, more so in diverse smallholder-based cropping
systems of the developing world. Field trials conducted over 10 years in northern China show that mirid bugs (Heteroptera: Miridae) have progressively increased population levels and acquired pest
status in cotton and multiple other crops, in association with a regional increase in Bt cotton adoption. More specifically, our analyses show that Bt cotton has become a source of mirid
bugs and that their population increases are related to drops in insecticide use in this crop. Hence, alterations of pest management regimes in Bt cotton could be responsible for the
appearance and subsequent spread of non-target pests at an agro-landscape level.
The effects of genetic engineering are complex and unpredictable; confounding problems can, do, and will certainly continue to present. We have no way of predicting them.
Pigweed is now choking millions of acres of cotton and soybeans in the southern United States, and is proving
resistant to control.
Transgenic contamination of certified seed stocks by GM crops (soybeans, maize, canola and cotton) is inevitable and unavoidable (Cummins J, 10.06.03). Once herbicide-tolerant transgenes from genetically modified crops pollinate
these stocks, the damage is irreversible — it is reproduced in subsequent generations with loss of the original cultivar.
U.S. farmers have adopted genetically engineered (GE) crops widely since their introduction in 1996, notwithstanding uncertainty about consumer acceptance and
economic and environmental impacts. Soybeans and cotton genetically engineered with herbicide-tolerant traits have been the most widely and rapidly adopted GE
crops in the U.S., followed by insect-resistant cotton and corn. This data product summarizes the extent of adoption of herbicide-tolerant and insect–resistant
crops since their introduction in 1996. Three tables devoted to corn, cotton, and soybeans cover the 2000-09 period by State. See more on the extent of adoption...
There is evidence that GMOs are not suitable as feed for animals; some studies show lower productivity rates and higher death rates among GMO-fed stock; and innumerable anecdotal reports
show that animals will eschew GMO feeds in preference to non-GMO alternatives (Novotny E, 2002).
While there have been reports of adverse microscopic and molecular effects in different organs or tissues from some GM foods
(Magaña-Gómez JA, 2009), many environmentally caused diseases take decades of exposure to show symptoms.
Do transgenic plants have a negative effect on health? Ever since their commercializa-
tion in 1996, the question has agitated circles of experts
and ecologists, without any indisputable proof allowing an affirmative response. Now, several recent studies effected by credible researchers
and published in scientific reviews tally with one another to throw doubt on GMOs' complete harmlessness. They don't assert that GMOs generate
health problems. But at the very least they suggest that GMOs provoke biological impacts that must be more widely studied [...]
(Hervé Kempf, Le Monde, 9.02.06).
Testing is not required for foods that fall under the GRAS
(Generally Recognized As Safe) designation of the FDA, and producers effectively decide if the GM product and plant that produces it are exempt from testing
(Schubert DR, 2008). "To date, the FDA has not disallowed a single favorable biotech industry safety determination in over
[112] completed applications"
(idem). Long-term animal study has not be done on virtually any GM product. Largely because there
are no labeling requirements, assay and epidemiological data cannot be collected to enable a conclusion of harm
(David Schubert, GM Watch, 27.01.10). The labeling of
genetically engineered foods in Canada is voluntary, so the
lack of assay and epidemiological data also applies.
Genetically engineered crops have raised a host of issues — ethical, ecological, medical, social, legal, and more — deeply dividing both the scientific community and the
general public. As you'll read below, GMOs have been linked to toxins, allergies, infertility, infant mortality, immune dysfunction, stunted growth, and death. Is
there reason for concern? We believe there is, and that it's important to know what might not be working in our best interests.
Getting the information you need...
Jeffrey M. Smith is the author of the #1 GMO bestseller,
Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You're Eating
(Yes! Books, 2003:304pp.), in which he presents the case against genetically modified foods and examines the unexpected, sometimes disastrous consequences of GM products.
In his second book,
Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods (Chelsea Green, 2007:312pp.),
Smith identifies sixty-five health risks associated with genetically engineered foods that Americans eat every day. In the video presentation below, he provides an engaging overview of the
manner in which GMOs are insidiously pervading our lives. With documented evidence and graphic illustrations, Smith links GMOs to toxins, allergies, infertility, infant mortality, immune
dysfunction, stunted growth, and death. He describes the sordid history of warnings ignored by the FDA, the manner in which FDA and other scientists were gagged, threatened, discredited or fired,
and the struggle for change successfully waged in Europe.
If you've never heard of GMOs, watch this presentation. It may very well change the way you think about the safety of our food supply,
and help you identify actions you can take to protect yourself and your family. Smith is a recognized expert, and his arguments are compelling, but if his presentation seems biased or
overblown, consider the other excerpts and references collected on this page. The evidence clearly merits attention and action.
At his Institute for Responsible Technology (IRS) site, Smith discusses this material in depth, enabling
the reader to review the research and study the evidence at leisure. The next article is adapted from one of the many available at the IRS.
"This study was just routine," said Russian biologist Alexey V. Surov, in what could end up as the understatement of this century. Surov and his
colleagues set out to discover if Monsanto's genetically modified (GM) soy, grown on 91% of US soybean fields, leads to problems in growth or reproduction.
What he discovered may uproot a multi-billion dollar industry.
After feeding hamsters for two years over three generations, those on the GM diet, and especially the group on the maximum GM soy diet, showed
devastating results. By the third generation, most GM soy-fed hamsters lost the ability to have babies. They also suffered slower growth, and a high mortality
rate among the pups.
And if this isn't shocking enough, some in the third generation even had hair growing inside their mouths—a phenomenon rarely seen, but apparently more
prevalent among hamsters eating GM soy.
The study, jointly conducted by Surov's Institute of Ecology and Evolution of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the National Association for Gene Security,
is expected to be published in three months (July 2010)—so the technical details will have to wait. But Surov sketched out the basic set up for me in an
email.
He used Campbell hamsters, with a fast reproduction rate, divided into 4 groups. All were fed a normal diet, but one was without any soy, another
had non-GM soy, a third used GM soy, and a fourth contained higher amounts of GM soy. They used 5 pairs of hamsters per group, each of which produced 7-8
litters, totally 140 animals.
Surov told The Voice of Russia [16 April 2010],
Originally, everything went smoothly. However, we noticed quite a serious effect when we selected new pairs from their cubs and continued to feed them as
before. These pairs' growth rate was slower and reached their sexual maturity slowly.
He selected new pairs from each group, which generated another 39 litters. There were 52 pups born to the control group and 78 to the non-GM soy group. In
the GM soy group, however, only 40 pups were born. And of these, 25% died. This was a fivefold higher death rate than the 5% seen among the controls. Of the
hamsters that ate high GM soy content, only a single female hamster gave birth. She had 16 pups; about 20% died.
Surov said "The low numbers in F2 [third generation] showed that many animals were sterile."
The published paper will also include measurements of organ size for the third generation animals, including testes, spleen, uterus, etc. And if the team
can raise sufficient funds, they will also analyze hormone levels in collected blood samples.
Hair Growing in the Mouth
Earlier this year, Surov co-authored a paper in Doklady Biological Sciences showing that in rare instances, hair grows inside recessed pouches
in the mouths of hamsters.
"Some of these pouches contained single hairs; others, thick bundles of colorless or pigmented hairs reaching as high as the chewing surface of the
teeth. Some-
times, the tooth row was surrounded with a regular brush of hair bundles on both sides. The hairs grew verti-
cally and had sharp ends, often
covered with lumps of a mucous."
At the conclusion of the study, the authors surmise that such an astounding defect may be due to the diet of hamsters raised in the laboratory. They write, "This pathology may
be exacerbated by elements of the food that are absent in natural food, such as genetically modified (GM) ingredients (GM soybean or maize meal) or contaminants (pesticides,
mycotoxins, heavy metals, etc.)." Indeed, the number of hairy mouthed hamsters was much higher among the third generation of GM soy fed animals than anywhere Surov had seen before.
Preliminary, But Ominous
Surov warns against jumping to early conclusions. He said, "It is quite possible that the GMO does not cause these effects by itself." Surov wants to make the analysis of the feed
components a priority, to discover just what is causing the effect and how.
In addition to the GMOs, it could be contaminants, he said, or higher herbicide residues, such as Roundup. There is in fact much higher levels of Roundup on these beans; they're
called "Roundup Ready". Bacterial genes are forced
into their DNA so that the plants can tolerate Monsanto's Roundup herbicide. Therefore, GM soy always carries the double threat of higher herbicide content, couple with any side
effects of genetic engineering.
|
Years of Reproductive Disorders from GMO-Feed
Surov's hamsters are just the latest animals to suffer from reproductive disorders after consuming GMOs. In 2005, Irina Ermakova, also with
the Russian National Academy of Sciences, reported that more than half the babies from mother rats fed GM soy died within three weeks. This
was also five times higher than the 10% death rate of the non-GMO soy group. The babies in the GM group were also smaller (see photo) and could not reproduce.
In a telling coincidence, after Ermakova's feeding trials, her laboratory started feeding all the rats in the facility a commercial rat chow using GM soy. Within two months,
the infant mortality facility-wide reached 55%. |
|
When Ermakova fed male rats GM soy, their testicles changed from the normal pink to dark blue!
 |
Italian scientists similarly found changes in mice testes, including damaged young sperm
cells. Furthermore, the DNA of embryos from parent mice fed GM soy functioned differently.
An Austrian government study published in November 2008 showed that the more
GM corn was fed to mice, the fewer the babies they had, and the smaller the babies were.
Central Iowa Farmer Jerry Rosman also had trouble with pigs and cows becoming
sterile. Some of his pigs even had false pregnancies or gave birth to bags of
water. After months of investigations and testing, he finally traced the problem
to GM corn feed. Every time a newspaper, magazine, or TV show reported Jerry's
problems, he would receive calls from more farmers complaining of livestock
sterility on their farm, linked to GM corn.
Researchers at Baylor College of Medicine accidentally discovered that rats raised on corncob bedding "neither breed nor exhibit reproductive behavior". Tests on the corn
material revealed two compounds that stopped the sexual cycle in females "at concentrations approximately two-hundredfold lower than classical phytoestrogens." One compound
also curtailed male sexual behavior and both substances contributed to the growth of breast and prostate cancer cell cultures. Researchers found that the
amount of the substances varied with GM corn varieties. The crushed corncob used at Baylor
was likely shipped from central Iowa, near the farm of Jerry Rosman and others complaining of sterile livestock.
In Haryana, India, a team of investigating veterinarians report that buffalo consuming GM cottonseed suffer from infertility, as well as frequent abortions,
premature deliveries, and prolapsed uteruses. Many adult and young buffalo have also died mysteriously.
|
There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation as defined by Hill's Criteria in the areas of strength of association,
consistency, specificity, biological gradient, and biological plausibility. The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal
studies.
Specificity of the association of GM foods and specific disease processes is also supported. Multiple animal studies show significant immune dysregulation, including upregulation
of cytokines associated with asthma, allergy, and inflammation. Animal studies also show altered structure and function of the liver, including altered lipid and carbohydrate
metabolism as well as cellular changes that could lead to accelerated aging and possibly lead to the accumulation of reactive oxygen species (ROS). Changes in the kidney, pancreas
and spleen have also been documented. [...] | |
Denial, Attack and Canceled Follow-up
Scientists who discover adverse findings from GMOs are regularly attacked, ridiculed, denied funding, and even fired. When Ermakova reported the high
infant mortality among GM soy fed offspring, for example, she appealed to the scientific community to repeat and verify her preliminary results. She also
sought additional funds to analyze preserved organs. Instead, she was attacked and vilified. Samples were stolen from her lab, papers were burnt on her desk,
and she said that her boss, under pressure from his boss, told her to stop doing any more GMO research. No one has yet repeated Ermakova's simple, inexpensive
studies.
In an attempt to offer her sympathy, one of her colleagues suggested that maybe the GM soy will solve the over population problem!
Surov reports that so far, he has not been under any pressure.
Opting Out of the Massive
GMO Feeding Experiment
Without detailed tests, no one can pinpoint exactly what is causing the reproductive travesties in Russian hamsters and rats, Italian and Austrian mice,
and livestock in India and America. And we can only speculate about the relationship between the introduction of genetically modified foods in 1996, and
the corresponding upsurge in low birth weight babies, infertility, and other problems among the US population. But many scientists, physicians, and concerned
citizens don't think that the public should remain the lab animals for the biotech industry's massive uncontrolled experiment.
Alexey Surov says, "We have no right to use GMOs until we understand the possible adverse effects, not only to ourselves but to future generations as
well. We definitely need fully detailed studies to clarify this. Any type of contamination has to be tested before we consume it, and GMO is just one of them. |
Monsanto: The drive to control, run amok
Transgenic contamination and more...
|
Maria-Monique Robin, author of World According to Monsanto: Pollution, Corruption, and the Control of the Worlds Food Supply (11 May 2010), and director of the film,
The World According to Monsanto (16 Dec 2008), presents a harsh indictment of Monsanto and their GMO initiatives, detailing processes, players, political manipulation,
bad science, data manipulation, duplicity and unethical strategies designed to dominate and control the food supply. The documentary below is avaliable on YouTube and Google Video (Running Time: 1:48:57).
On March 11 a new documentary was aired on French television - a documentary that Americans won't ever see. The gigantic bio-tech corporation Monsanto is threatening to destroy the
agricultural biodiversity which has served mankind for thousands of years. |
 |
|
| |
More Real-World Consequences of Bioengineering
Across the South, there's a weed that man can no longer kill. It's called the
pig weed, and for decades farmers controlled it by spraying their fields with
herbicides.
"I've never seen anything that had this major an impact on our agriculture
in a short period of time," said Ken Smith, a weed scientist at the University
of Arkansas.
This past summer, Pace Hindsely of Coffee Creek Farms and other farmers
started noticing the chemicals they routinely used were no longer working.
"The last three years it's really just exploded. There is no rhyme or reason as to how
we can control it," Hindsely said. "I am worried about the future or what these fields will look like next year and the year after if we don't control this weed."
The weeds have adapted, and this year they're choking more than a million acres
of cotton and soybeans.
What Are the Health Risks Associated with GMOs?
Genetically modified foods:
YES, you're eating them.
NO, they're not safe.
Did you know... since 1996 Americans have been eating
genetically modified (GM) ingredients in most processed foods.
Did you know... GM plants, such as soybean, corn,
cottonseed, and canola, have had foreign genes forced into their DNA. The
inserted genes come from species, such as bacteria and viruses, which have never
been in the human food supply.
Did you know... The American Academy of Environmental Medicine states, "Several animal studies indicate serious health risks
associated with GM food," including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, faulty insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the
gastrointestinal system. They ask physicians to advise patients to avoid GM foods.1
Find out what the risks are and start protecting yourself and your family today!
Why isn't the FDA protecting us?
In 1992, the Food and Drug Administration claimed they had no information showing that GM foods were substantially different from conventionally grown
foods. Therefore they are safe to eat, and absolutely no safety studies were required. But internal memos made public by a lawsuit2 reveal
that their position was staged by political appointees who were under orders from the White House to promote GMOs. In addition, the FDA official in charge of creating this policy was Michael Taylor,
the former attorney for Monsanto, the largest biotech company, and later their vice president.
In reality, FDA scientists had repeatedly warned that GM foods can create unpredictable, hard-to-detect side effects, including allergies, toxins, new
diseases, and nutritional problems. They urged long-term safety studies, but were ignored.
Today, the same biotech companies who have been found guilty of hiding toxic effects of their chemical products are in charge of determining whether their GM
foods are safe. Industry-funded GMO safety studies are too superficial to find most of the potential dangers, and their voluntary consultations with the FDA
are widely criticized as a meaningless façade.3
Genetic modification is radically different from natural
breeding
Genetic engineering transfers genes across natural species barriers. It uses imprecise laboratory techniques that bear no resemblance to natural breeding,
and is based on outdated concepts of how genes and cells work.4 Gene insertion is done either by shooting genes from a
"gene gun" into a plate of cells or by using bacteria to invade the cell with foreign DNA. The altered cell is then cloned into a plant.
Widespread, unpredictable changes
The genetic engineering process creates massive collateral damage, causing mutations in hundreds or thousands of locations throughout
the plant's DNA.5 Natural genes can be deleted or permanently turned on or off, and hundreds may change their
behavior.6 Even the inserted gene can be damaged or rearranged,7 and
may create proteins that can trigger allergies or promote disease.
GM foods on the market
There are eight GM food crops. The five major varieties — soy, corn, canola, cotton, and sugar beets — have bacterial genes inserted, which allow the plants to
survive an otherwise deadly dose of weed killer. Farmers use considerably more herbicides on these GM crops and so the food has higher herbicide residues.
About 68% of GM crops are herbicide tolerant.
|
Properties
Unlike typical nerve-poison insecticides, Bt acts by producing proteins (delta-endotoxin, the "toxic crystal") that reacts with the cells of the gut lining of susceptible insects.
These Bt proteins paralyze the digestive system, and the infected insect stops feeding within hours. Bt-affected insects generally die from starvation, which can take several days.
Occasionally, the bacteria enter the insect's blood and reproduce within the insect. However, in most insects it is the reaction of the protein crystal that is lethal to the insect.
Even dead bacteria containing the proteins are effective insecticides. [...] | |
The second GM trait is a built-in pesticide, found in GM corn and cotton. A gene from the soil bacterium called Bt (for Bacillus thuringiensis) is inserted
into the plant's DNA, where it secretes the insect-killing Bt-toxin in every cell. About 19% of GM crops produce their own pesticide. Another 13% produce a
pesticide and are herbicide tolerant.
There is also Hawaiian papaya and a small amount of zucchini and yellow crookneck squash, which are engineered to resist a plant virus.
Growing evidence of harm from GMOs
GM soy and allergic reactions
- Soy allergies skyrocketed by 50% in the UK, soon after GM soy was
introduced.8
- A skin prick allergy test shows that some people react to GM soy, but not to
wild natural soy.9
- Cooked GM soy contains as much as 7-times the amount of a known soy allergen.10
- GM soy also contains a new unexpected allergen, not found in wild natural soy.11
Bt corn and cotton linked to allergies
The biotech industry claims that Bt-toxin is harmless to humans and mammals
because the natural bacteria version has been used as a spray by farmers for
years. In reality, hundreds of people exposed to Bt spray had allergic-type
symptoms,12 and mice fed Bt had
powerful immune responses13 and damaged
intestines.14 Moreover, the Bt in
GM crops is designed to be more toxic than the natural spray and is thousands of
times more concentrated.
Farm workers throughout India are getting the same allergic reactions from
handling Bt cotton15 as those who
reacted to Bt spray.16 Mice17 and rats18 fed Bt corn also showed immune responses.
GMOs fail allergy tests
No tests can guarantee that a GMO will not cause allergies. Although the
World Health Organization recommends a screening protocol,19 the GM soy, corn, and papaya in our food supply fail
those tests—because their GM proteins have properties of known allergens.20
GMOs may make you allergic to non-GM foods
- GM soy drastically reduces digestive enzymes in mice.21 If it also impairs your digestion, you may become
sensitive and allergic to a variety of foods.
- Mice fed Bt-toxin started having immune reactions to formerly harmless
foods.22
- Mice fed experimental GM peas also started reacting to a range of other
foods.23 (The peas had already passed
all the allergy tests normally done before a GMO gets on the market. Only this
advanced test, which is never used on the GMOs we eat, revealed that the peas
could actually be deadly.)
GMOs and liver problems
- Rats fed GM potatoes had smaller, partially atrophied livers.24
- The livers of rats fed GM canola were 12-16% heavier.25
- GM soy altered mouse liver cells in ways that suggest a toxic insult.26 The changes reversed after they
switched to non-GM soy.27
GMOs, reproductive problems, and infant mortality
- More than half the babies of mother rats fed GM soy died within three weeks.28
- Male rats29 and mice30 fed GM soy had changed testicles,
including altered young sperm cells in the mice.
- The DNA of mouse embryos functioned differently when their parents ate GM
soy31
- The longer mice were fed GM corn, the less babies they
had, and the smaller their babies were.32
- Babies of female rats fed GM soy were considerably smaller, and more than
half died within three weeks (compared to 10% of the non-GM soy
controls).33
Bt crops linked to sterility, disease, and death
- Thousands of sheep, buffalo, and goats in India died after grazing on Bt cotton plants after harvest. Others suffered poor health and reproductive
problems.34
- Farmers in Europe and Asia say that cows, water buffaloes, chickens, and horses died from eating Bt corn varieties.35
- About two dozen US farmers report that Bt corn varieties caused widespread sterility in pigs or cows.36
- Filipinos in at least five villages fell sick when a nearby Bt corn variety was pollinating.37
- The stomach lining of rats fed GM potatoes showed excessive cell growth, a condition that may lead to cancer. Rats also had
damaged organs and immune systems.38
Functioning GM genes remain inside you
Unlike safety evaluations for drugs, there are no human clinical trials of GM foods. The only published human feeding experiment revealed that the genetic
material inserted into GM soy transfers into bacteria living inside our intestines and continues to function.39 This
means that long after we stop eating GM foods, we may still have their GM proteins produced continuously inside us.
- If the antibiotic gene inserted into most GM crops were to transfer, it could create super diseases, resistant to antibiotics.
- If the gene that creates Bt-toxin in GM corn were to transfer, it might turn our intestinal bacteria into living pesticide factories.
- Animal studies show that DNA in food can travel into organs throughout the body, even into the fetus.40
GM food supplement caused deadly epidemic
In the 1980s, a contaminated brand of a food supplement called L-tryptophan killed about 100 Americans and caused sickness and disability in another
5,000-10,000 people. The source of contaminants was almost certainly the genetic engineering process used in its production. The disease took
years to find and was almost overlooked. It was only identified because the symptoms were unique, acute, and fast-acting. If all three characteristics were
not in place, the deadly GM supplement might never have been identified or removed.
If GM foods on the market are causing common diseases or if their effects appear only after long-term exposure, we may not be able to identify the source
of the problem for decades, if at all. There is no monitoring of GMO-related illnesses and no long-term animal studies. Heavily invested biotech corporations
are gambling with the health of our nation for their profit.
Help end the genetic engineering of our food supply
When the tipping point of consumer concern about GMOs was achieved in Europe in 1999, within a single week virtually all major food manufacturers committed
to remove GM ingredients. The Campaign for Healthier Eating in America is designed to reach a similar tipping point in the US soon.
Our growing network of manufacturers, retailers, healthcare practitioners, organizations, and the media, is informing consumers of the health risks of GMOs
and helping them select healthier non-GMO alternatives with our Non-GMO Shopping Guides.
Go to www.responsibletechnology.org to get involved and learn how to
avoid GMOs. [...]
- See http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html
- Seehttp://www.biointegrity.org
- See Part 2, Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA 2007
- See for example 233-236, chart of disproved assumptions, in Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health
Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA 2007
- J. R. Latham, et al.
The Mutational Consequences of Plant Transformation.
The Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology 2006, Article ID 25376:1-7.
See also Allison Wilson, et. al.
Transformation-induced mutations in transgenic plants: Analysis and biosafety implications.
Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews – Vol. 23, December 2006.
- Srivastava, et al.
Pharmacogenomics of the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) and the cystic fibrosis drug CPX using genome microarray analysis.
Mol Med. 5, no.11(Nov 1999):753–67.
- Latham, et al.
The Mutational Consequences of Plant Transformation.
Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology 2006:1-7,
article ID 25376, http://www.hindawi.com/journals/JBB/index.html.
Draft risk analysis report application A378, Food derived from glyphosate-tolerant sugarbeet line 77 (GTSB77).
ANZFA March 7, 2001, http://www.agbios.com/docroot/decdocs/anzfa_gtsb77.pdf.
E. Levine, et al.
Molecular Characterization of Insect Protected Corn Line MON 810. Unpublished study submitted to the EPA by Monsanto, EPA MRID No. 436655-01C (1995).
Allison Wilson PhD, Jonathan Latham PhD, and Ricarda Steinbrecher PhD.
Genome Scrambling — Myth or Reality? Transformation-Induced Mutations in Transgenic Crop Plants Technical Report — October 2004.
http://www.econexus.info
C. Collonier, G. Berthier, F. Boyer, M. N. Duplan, S. Fernandez, N. Kebdani, A. Kobilinsky, M. Romanuk, Y. Bertheau.
Characterization of commercial GMO inserts: a source of useful material to study genome fluidity.
Poster presented at ICPMB: International Congress for Plant Molecular Biology (n°VII), Barcelona, 23-28th June 2003. Poster courtesy of Dr. Gilles-Eric Seralini, Président du
Conseil Scientifique du CRII-GEN, http://www.crii-gen.org.
Mae-Wan Ho.
Transgenic lines proven unstable.
ISIS Report, 23 October 2003, http://www.i-sis.org.uk
- Mark Townsend, "Why soya is a hidden destroyer,"
Daily Express, March 12, 1999.
- Hye-Yung Yum, Soo-Young Lee, Kyung-Eun Lee, Myung-Hyun Sohn, Kyu-Earn Kim.
Genetically Modified and Wild Soybeans: An immunologic comparison.
Allergy and Asthma Proceedings 26, no.3 (May–June 2005):210-216(7).
- A. Pusztai and S. Bardocz.
GMO in animal nutrition: potential benefits and risks.
Chapter 17, Biology of Nutrition in Growing Animals, R. Mosenthin, J. Zentek and T. Zebrowska (Eds.) Elsevier,
October 2005.
- Hye-Yung Yum, Soo-Young Lee, Kyung-Eun Lee, Myung-Hyun Sohn, Kyu-Earn Kim.
Genetically Modified and Wild Soybeans: An immunologic comparison.
Allergy and Asthma Proceedings 26, no.3 (May–June 2005):210-216(7).
- M. Green, et al.
Public health implications of the microbial pesticide Bacillus thuringiensis: An epidemiological study, Oregon, 1985-86.
Amer. J. Public Health 80, no. 7(1990):848–852.
M.A. Noble, P.D. Riben, and G. J. Cook.
Microbiological and epidemiological surveillance program to monitor the health effects of Foray 48B BTK spray.
(Vancouver, B.C.: Ministry of Forests, Province of British Columbia, Sep. 30, 1992)
- Vazquez, et al.
Intragastric and intraperitoneal administration of Cry1Ac protoxin from Bacillus thuringiensis induces systemic and mucosal antibody responses in mice. 1897–1912.
Vazquez, et al.
Characterization of the mucosal and systemic immune response induced by Cry1Ac protein from Bacillus thuringiensis HD 73 in mice.
Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research 33(2000):147–155
Vazquez, et al.
Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ac protoxin is a potent systemic and mucosal adjuvant.
Scandanavian Journal of Immunology 49(1999):578–584.
See also Vazquez-Padron, et al., 147(2000b).
- Nagui H. Fares, Adel K. El-Sayed.
Fine Structural Changes in the Ileum of Mice Fed on Endotoxin Treated Potatoes and Transgenic Potatoes.
Natural Toxins 6, no. 6(1998):219–233.
- See for example:
Bt cotton causing allergic reaction in MP; cattle dead.
Bhopal, Nov. 23, 2005, http://news.webindia123.com/news/showdetails.asp?id=170692&cat=Health
- Ashish Gupta, et. al.
Impact of Bt Cotton on Farmers' Health (in Barwani and Dhar District of Madhya Pradesh).
Investigation Report, Oct–Dec 2005.
M. Green, et al.
Public health implications of the microbial pesticide Bacillus thuringiensis: An epidemiological study, Oregon, 1985-86.
Amer. J. Public Health 80, no. 7(1990):848–852
M.A. Noble, P.D. Riben, and G. J. Cook.
Microbiological and epidemiological surveillance program to monitor the health effects of Foray 48B BTK spray.
(Vancouver, B.C.: Ministry of Forests, Province of British Columbi, Sep. 30, 1992)
- Alberto Finamore, et al.
Intestinal and Peripheral Immune Response to MON810 Maize Ingestion in Weaning and Old Mice.
J. Agric. Food Chem., 2008, 56(23):11533–11539, November 14, 2008.
- Joël Spiroux de Vendômois, François Roullier, Dominique Cellier and Gilles-Eric Séralini.
A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health.
International Journal of Biological Sciences 2009; 5(7):706-726
Seralini GE, Cellier D, Spiroux de Vendomois J.
New analysis of a rat feeding study with a genetically modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity.
Arch Environ Contam Toxicol. 2007;52:596-602.
- FAO-WHO.
Evaluation of Allergenicity of Genetically Modified Foods: Report of a Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Allergenicity of Foods Derived from Biotechnology.
Jan. 22–25, 2001; http://www.fao.org/es/ESN/food/pdf/allergygm.pdf
- Gendel.
The use of amino acid sequence alignments to assess potential allergenicity of proteins used in genetically modified foods.
Advances in Food and Nutrition Research 42 (1998)45–62.
G. A. Kleter and A. A. C. M. Peijnenburg.
Screening of transgenic proteins expressed in transgenic food crops for the presence of short amino acid sequences indentical to potential, IgE-binding linear epitopes of allergens.
BMC Structural Biology 2 (2002):8–19
H. P. J. M. Noteborn.
Assessment of the Stability to Digestion and Bioavailability of the LYS Mutant Cry9C Protein from Bacillus thuringiensis serovar tolworthi.
Unpublished study submitted to the EPA by AgrEvo, EPA MRID No. 447343-05 (1998).
H. P. J. M. Noteborn, et al.
Safety Assessment of the Bacillus thuringiensis Insecticidal Crystal Protein CRYIA(b) Expressed in Transgenic Tomatoes.
In: K.H. Engel, et al., Eds.
Genetically modified foods: safety issues.
American Chemical Society Symposium Series 605 (Washington, DC, 1995:134–47).
- M. Malatesta, M. Biggiogera, E. Manuali, M. B. L. Rocchi, B. Baldelli, G. Gazzanelli.
Fine Structural Analyses of Pancreatic Acinar Cell Nuclei from Mice Fed on GM Soybean.
Eur J Histochem 47 (2003): 385–388.
- Vazquez, et al.
Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ac protoxin is a potent systemic and mucosal adjuvant.
Scandanavian Journal of Immunology 49 (1999):578–584. See also Vazquez-Padron et al., 147 (2000b).
- V. E. Prescott, et al.
Transgenic Expression of Bean r-Amylase Inhibitor in Peas Results in Altered Structure and Immunogenicity.
Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry (2005):53.
- Arpad Pusztai.
Can science give us the tools for recognizing possible health risks of GM food.
Nutrition and Health, 2002, Vol 16 Pp 73-84.
- Comments to ANZFA about Applications A346, A362 and A363 from the Food Legislation and Regulation Advisory Group (FLRAG) of
the Public Health Association of Australia (PHAA) on behalf of the PHAA, "Food produced from glyphosate-tolerant canola line GT73," http://www.iher.org.au/
- M. Malatesta, C. Caporaloni, S. Gavaudan, M. B. Rocchi, S. Serafini, C. Tiberi, G. Gazzanelli.
Ultrastructural Morphometrical and Immunocytochemical Analyses of Hepatocyte Nuclei from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean.
Cell Struct Funct. 27 (2002):173–180.
- M. Malatesta, C. Tiberi, B. Baldelli, S. Battistelli, E. Manuali, M. Biggiogera.
Reversibility of Hepatocyte Nuclear Modifications in Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean.
Eur J Histochem, 49 (2005):237-242.
- I.V. Ermakova.
Diet with the Soya Modified by Gene EPSPS CP4 Leads to Anxiety and Aggression in Rats.
14th European Congress of Psychiatry. Nice, France, March 4-8, 2006.
Genetically modified soy affects posterity: Results of Russian scientists' studies.
REGNUM, October 12, 2005; http://www.regnum.ru/english/526651.html
Irina Ermakova.
Genetically modified soy leads to the decrease of weight and high mortality of rat pups of the first generation. Preliminary studies.
Ecosinform 1 (2006):4–9.
- Irina Ermakova.
Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards.
Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament, Brussels, June 12, 2007.
- L. Vecchio, et al,
Ultrastructural Analysis of Testes from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean.
European Journal of Histochemistry 48, no. 4 (Oct–Dec 2004):449–454.
- Oliveri, et al.
Temporary Depression of Transcription in Mouse Pre-implantion Embryos from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean.
48th Symposium of the Society for Histochemistry, Lake Maggiore (Italy), September 7–10, 2006.
- Alberta Velimirov and Claudia Binter.
Biological effects of transgenic maize NK603xMON810 fed in long term reproduction studies in mice.
Forschungsberichte der Sektion IV, Band 3/2008.
- I.V. Ermakova.
Diet with the Soya Modified by Gene EPSPS CP4 Leads to Anxiety and Aggression in Rats.
14th European Congress of Psychiatry. Nice, France, March 4-8, 2006
Genetically modified soy affects posterity: Results of Russian scientists' studies.
REGNUM, October 12, 2005; http://www.regnum.ru/english/526651.html
Irina Ermakova.
Genetically modified soy leads to the decrease of weight and high mortality of rat pups of the first generation. Preliminary studies/
Ecosinform 1(2006):4–9.
- Mortality in Sheep Flocks after Grazing on Bt Cotton Fields—Warangal District, Andhra Pradesh.
Report of the Preliminary Assessment, April 2006, http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6494
- Mae-Wan Ho.
GM Ban Long Overdue, Dozens Ill & Five Deaths in the Philippines.
ISIS Press Release, June 2, 2006
Mae-Wan Ho and Sam Burcher.
Cows Ate GM Maize & Died.
ISIS Press Release, January 13, 2004, http://www.isis.org.uk/CAGMMAD.php
- Personal communication with Jerry Rosman and other farmers, 2006; also reported widely in the farm press.
- See for example Mae-Wan Ho.
GM Ban Long Overdue, Dozens Ill & Five Deaths in the Philippines.
ISIS Press Release, June 2, 2006.
Study Result Not Final, Proof Bt Corn Harmful to Farmers.
BusinessWorld, 02 Mar 2004.
Genetically Modified Crops and Illness Linked.
Manila Bulletin, 04 Mar 2004
- Arpad Pusztai.
Can science give us the tools for recognizing possible health risks of GM food.
Nutrition and Health, 2002, Vol 16:73-84
Stanley W. B. Ewen and Arpad Pusztai.
Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine.
Lancet 1999 Oct 16; 354(9187):1353-4.
Arpad Pusztai.
Facts Behind the GM Pea Controversy: Epigenetics, Transgenic Plants & Risk Assessment.
Proceedings of the Conference, December 1st 2005 (Frankfurtam Main, Germany: Literaturhaus, 2005).
- Netherwood, et al.
Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract.
Nature Biotechnology 22 (2004): 2.
- Ricarda A. Steinbrecher and Jonathan R. Latham.
Horizontal gene transfer from GM crops to unrelated organisms.
GM Science Review Meeting of the Royal Society of Edinburgh on "GM Gene Flow: Scale and
Consequences for Agriculture and the Environment," January 27, 2003
Traavik and Heinemann.
Genetic Engineering and Omitted Health Research. Citing Schubbert, et al.
Ingested foreign (phage M13) DNA survives transiently in the gastrointestinal tract and enters the bloodstream of mice.
Mol Gen Genet. 242, no. 5 (1994): 495–504
Schubbert, et al.
Foreign (M13) DNA ingested by mice reaches peripheral leukocytes, spleen, and liver via the intestinal wall mucosa and can be covalently linked to mouse DNA.
Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94, no. 3(1997):961–6
Schubbert, et al.
On the fate of orally ingested foreign DNA in mice: chromosomal association and placental transmission to the fetus/
Mol Gen Genet. 259, no. 6(1998):569–76
Hohlweg and Doerfler.
On the fate of plants or other foreign genes upon the uptake in food or after intramuscular injection in mice.
Mol Genet Genomics 265(2001):225–233
Palka-Santani, et al.
The gastrointestinal tract as the portal of entry for foreign macromolecules: fate of DNA and proteins.
Mol Gen Genomics 270(2003):201–215
Einspanier, et al.
The fate of forage plant DNA in farm animals; a collaborative case-study investigating cattle and chicken fed recombinant plant material.
Eur Food Res Technol 212(2001):129–134
Klotz, et al.
Degradation and possible carry over of feed DNA monitored in pigs and poultry.
Eur Food Res Technol 214(2002):271–275
Forsman, et al.
Uptake of amplifiable fragments of retrotransposon DNA from the human alimentary tract.
Mol Gen Genomics 270(2003):362–368
Chen, et al.
Transfection of mEpo gene to intestinal epithelium in vivo mediated by oral delivery of chitosan-DNA nanoparticles.
World Journal of Gastroenterology 10, no. 1(2004):112–116
Phipps, et al.
Detection of transgenic and endogenous plant DNA in rumen fluid, duodenal digesta, milk, blood, and feces of lactating dairy cows.
J Dairy Sci 86, no. 12(2003):4070–8. | | |
|
|
|
 |
Vitamin, Mineral,
Herbal & Homeopathic
SUPERSTORE |
One Year 100% Money-Back &
Lowest Price Guarantees
INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING |
|
|
|
| See Review |
|
|
|
|
|
Genetic engineering is the manipulation of genes to create new organisms that can’t be created by nature. Unlike genetic engineering, natural breeding techniques create new
varieties of plants by selecting traits from the multitude that already exist within a species. In nature, genetic diversity contains certain limits. Corn can be crossed with
another variety of corn, but not with a field mouse.
The genetic manipulation of food is still highly experimental and fails to take into account the incredibly delicate and complex relationship of genes to organisms and organisms
to the environment. Genetic engineering takes genes from one species and inserts them into another with the hope of transferring a particular trait. Scientists have tried to
introduce a gene that Arctic fish have for resisting the cold into tomatoes to prevent freezing.
Across the country, up to 70 per cent of processed foods in grocery stores contain or may contain GE ingredients. Although 95 per cent of Canadians believe they have a right to
know if their food has been genetically engineered, labelling is not required in Canada. In dozens of other countries, more than two billion people are protected by existing or
proposed mandatory labelling laws for GE food. To help guide consumers to GE-free grocery shopping, Greenpeace has produced a shopping guide, How to Avoid Genetically Engineered Food. [...]
 |
Agricultural technologies, unlike many other technologies, have a major impact on human beings and other life forms. This is because of the huge magnitude of this human activity – farming is
spread over a major part of this planet's land and is the primary occupation of millions of people, especially in the third world. Further, these technologies will impact each one of us as we are all
consumers of food. Agricultural technologies also have the ability to leave lasting impacts, as the lesson from chemical pesticides has shown us. Fate of future generations can be sealed one way
or the other by agricultural technologies deployed at any particular point of time. A closer look at agricultural technologies pushed as "modern science & technology" shows that science is
certainly fallible and it is more than clear that decisions related to agricultural technologies should not be left to the so-called "experts" alone. Farming itself is a complex process with impacts
spilling over onto communities and their very lives and livelihoods. Understanding of such a complex process cannot be left to reductionist science and its believers.
In the case of Genetic Engineering, more than any other agricultural technology, the need for utmost precaution is urgent and imperative. There is ample evidence to show that it is imprecise
and unpredictable. What is worse, it is irreversible since it involves living organisms which are capable of procreation and further spread, unlike the chemical molecules used in pesticides. Its
potential for contamination and bringing about evolutionary-level changes in eco-systems cannot be denied. The impacts of GE in farming will change the structure of the planet's food at the
molecular level and there is no turning back.
It is also a technology that is being aggressively pushed with the enormous money power of large transnational corporations like Monsanto. There is a great hype created around the technology as
"frontier science" and as the only alternative for the future. The reality on the ground is however different from the rosy picture that the industry promotes. There is growing rejection of GE as a
technology the world over. Nearly a decade and a half later after the first GM crop, only 12 countries have opted for the technology in any significant manner. It is also interesting to note
that in countries like the USA, where the technology has been promoted and adopted on a large scale, farming has to be propped up with huge subsidies, in spite of such "efficient", "frontier",
"precise" technologies. Many negative experiences are already available in India from Bt Cotton cultivation in the past six years. [...]
[Read the full document] |
 |
|
