Genetic Engineers Explain Why GE Food Is Dangerous
Nation of Change, Sunday 24 June 2012
One of the report¹s authors, Dr. Michael Antoniou of King¹s College London School of Medicine in the UK, uses genetic engineering for medical applications but warns against its use in developing crops for human food and animal feed.
Aren¹t critics of genetically engineered food anti-science? Isn¹t the debate over GMOs (genetically modified organisms) a spat between emotional but ignorant activists on one hand and rational GM-supporting scientists on the other?
A report released June 17, GMO Myths and Truths, challenges these claims. 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.
Unusually, the initiative for the report came not from campaigners but from two genetic engineers, who believe there are good scientific reasons to be wary of GM foods and crops.
One of the report¹s authors, Dr. Michael Antoniou of King¹s College London School of Medicine in the UK, uses genetic engineering for medical applications but warns against its use in developing crops for human food and animal feed.
³GM 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,² said Dr. Antoniou. ³I felt what was needed was a collation of the evidence that addresses the technology from a scientific point of view.²
³Research studies show that genetically modified crops have harmful effects on laboratory animals in feeding trials and on the environment during cultivation,² Antoniou said. ³They 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 world¹s food needs.²
Another author of the report, Dr. John Fagan, is a former genetic engineer who in 1994 returned to the National Institutes of Health $614,000 in grant money due to concerns about the safety and ethics of the technology. He subsequently founded a GMO testing company.
³Crop genetic engineering as practiced today is a crude, imprecise and outmoded technology,² said Dr. Fagan. ³It 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.²
³Over 75 percent of all GM crops are engineered to tolerate being sprayed with herbicide,² Fagan said. ³This 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.²
The third author of the report, Claire Robinson, research director of Earth Open Source, said, ³The 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.²
³We 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,² Robinson added.
30 Key Points from the Report:
1. Genetic engineering as used in crop development is not precise or predictable and has not been shown to be safe. The technique can result in the unexpected production of toxins or allergens in food that are unlikely to be spotted in current regulatory checks.
2. GM crops, including some that are already in our food and animal feed supply, have shown clear signs of toxicity in animal feeding trials‹notably disturbances in liver and kidney function and immune responses.
3. GM proponents have dismissed these statistically significant findings as ³not biologically relevant/significant,² based on scientifically
indefensible arguments.
4. Certain EU-commissioned animal feeding trials with GM foods and crops are often claimed by GM proponents to show they are safe. In fact, examination of these studies shows significant differences between the GM-fed and control animals that give cause for concern.
5. GM foods have not been properly tested in humans, but the few studies that have been carried out in humans give cause for concern.
6. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not require mandatory safety testing of GM crops, and does not even assess the safety of GM crops but only ³deregulates² them, based on assurances from biotech companies that they are ³substantially equivalent² to their non-GM counterparts. This is like claiming that a cow with BSE is substantially equivalent to a cow that does not have BSE and is thus safe to eat. Claims of substantial equivalence cannot be justified on scientific grounds.
7. The regulatory regime for GM foods is weakest in the U.S., where GM foods do not even have to be assessed for safety or labeled in the marketplace, but in most regions of the world regulations are inadequate to protect people¹s health from the potential adverse effects of GM foods.
8. In the EU, where the regulatory system is often claimed to be strict, minimal pre-market testing is required for a GMO and the tests are
commissioned by the same companies that stand to profit from the GMO if it is approved‹a clear conflict of interest.
9. No long-term toxicological testing of GMOs on animals or testing on humans is required by any regulatory agency in the world.
10. Biotech companies have used patent claims and intellectual property protection laws to restrict access of independent researchers to GM crops for research purposes. As a result, limited research has been conducted on GM foods and crops by scientists who are independent of the GM industry. Scientists whose work has raised concerns about the safety of GMOs have been attacked and discredited in orchestrated campaigns by GM crop promoters.
11. Most GM crops (more than 75 percent) are engineered to tolerate applications of herbicides. Where such GM crops have been adopted, they have led to massive increases in herbicide use.
12. Roundup, the herbicide that more than 50 percent of all GM crops are engineered to tolerate, is not safe or benign as has been claimed but has been found to cause malformations (birth defects), reproductive problems, DNA damage and cancer in test animals. Human epidemiological studies have found an association between Roundup exposure and miscarriage, birth defects, neurological development problems, DNA damage and certain types of cancer.
13. A public health crisis has erupted in GM soy-producing regions of South America, where people exposed to spraying with Roundup and other agrochemicals sprayed on the crop report escalating rates of birth defects and cancer.
14. A large number of studies indicate that Roundup is associated with increased crop diseases, especially infection with Fusarium, a fungus that causes wilt disease in soy and can have toxic effects on humans and livestock.
15. Bt insecticidal GM crops do not sustainably reduce pesticide use but change the way in which pesticides are used: from sprayed on, to built in.
16. Bt technology is proving unsustainable as pests evolve resistance to the toxin and secondary pest infestations are becoming common.
17. GM proponents claim that the Bt toxin engineered into GM plants is safe because the natural form of Bt, long used as a spray by conventional and organic farmers, has a history of safe use. But the GM forms of Bt toxins are different from the natural forms and could have different toxic and allergenic effects.
18. GM Bt toxin is not limited in its toxicity to insect pests. GM Bt crops have been found to have toxic effects on laboratory animals in feeding trials.
19. GM Bt crops have been found to have toxic effects on non-target organisms in the environment.
20. Bt toxin is not fully broken down in digestion and has been found circulating in the blood of pregnant women in Canada and in the blood supply to their fetuses.
21. The no-till method of farming promoted with GM herbicide-tolerant crops, which avoids ploughing and uses herbicides to control weeds, is not more climate-friendly than ploughing. No-till fields do not store more carbon in the soil than ploughed fields when deeper levels of soil are measured.
22. No-till increases the negative environmental impacts of soy cultivation, because of the herbicides used.
23. Golden Rice, a beta-carotene-enriched rice, is promoted as a GM crop that could help malnourished people overcome vitamin A deficiency. But Golden Rice has not been tested for toxicological safety, has been plagued by basic development problems, and, after more than 12 years and millions of dollars of research funding, is still not ready for the market. Meanwhile, inexpensive and effective solutions to vitamin A deficiency are available but under-used due to lack of funding.
24. GM crops are often promoted as a ³vital tool in the toolbox² to feed the world¹s growing population, but many experts question the contribution they could make, as they do not offer higher yields or cope better with drought than non-GM crops. Most GM crops are engineered to tolerate herbicides or to contain a pesticide‹traits that are irrelevant to feeding the hungry.
25. High adoption of GM crops among farmers is not a sign that the GM crop is superior to non-GM varieties, as once GM companies gain control of the seed market, they withdraw non-GM seed varieties from the market. The notion of ³farmer choice² does not apply in this situation.
26. GM contamination of non-GM and organic crops has resulted in massive financial losses by the food and feed industry, involving product recalls, lawsuits, and lost markets.
27. When many people read about high yielding, pest- and disease-resistant, drought-tolerant, and nutritionally improved super-crops, they think of GM. In fact, these are all products of conventional breeding, which continues to outstrip GM in producing such crops. The report contains a long list of these conventional crop breeding successes.
28. Certain ³supercrops² have been claimed to be GM successes when in fact they are products of conventional breeding, in some cases assisted by the non-GM biotechnology of marker assisted selection.
29. Conventional plant breeding, with the help of non-GM biotechnologies such as marker assisted selection, is a safer and more powerful method than GM to produce new crop varieties required to meet current and future needs of food production, especially in the face of rapid climate change.
30. Conventionally bred, locally adapted crops, used in combination with agro ecological farming practices, offer a proven, sustainable approach to ensuring global food security.
