The letter below, translated to Portuguese, was sent by us to the government of Brazil in the beginning of February 1998

_______________________________________________________________________

Physicians and Scientists for Responsible
Application of Science and Technology
– A Global Network –

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

To the Government of Brazil

As you certainly know, repeated opinion polls show that a majority of European consumers are against genetic engineering of foods, demanding labeling of such food. Even in the US, a majority is now demanding labeling.

The biotechnology "proponents" have persistently been maintaining that this is only an "attitude problem" that can be rectified by "proper" information. They say it is an expression of ignorance or of irrational fears for a new technology or of irrational ideological or religious conceptions. However, this is not correct. The consumer resistance is not an "attitude problem". It is the expression of the fact that consumers in many countries, especially in Europe, are well-informed about genetically engineered foods and do not accept the claims of the biotechnology "proponents" that they are safe.

Some of the misleading or untrue statements of the biotechnology "proponents":

1. "Genetic engineering is just a variety of breeding." (Consequently it is not legally justifiable to introduce regulations that treat GE crops and foods differently from other bred crops.)

The truth is that genetic engineering is fundamentally different from breeding. Due to the artificial insertion of a foreign gene, unexpected harmful substances may appear. This is a scientific, experimentally verified fact. For a simple and comprehensive explanation, see for example our article at http://www.psrast.org/mianbrbr.htm

2. "Genetically engineered foods have been carefully tested and found safe."

The truth is that GE foods are not safe as presently tested. The assessment required for approval by e.g. FDA or EU (based on the principle of substantial equivalence) is so insufficient that there is a great risk that unexpected harmful substances may remain undetected. For a comprehensive explanation see the article of PSRAST "Substantial equivalence versus scientific food safety assessment" at http://www.psrast.org/subeqow.htm

3. "There is no evidence that genetically engineered organisms are harmful to the environment."

The truth is that it has not been established that GE organisms are ecologically harmless. A large number of field tests have been done, but these have generally been superficial and have not included comprehensive investigations of long term ecological impacts. The advisor of the European Parliament, Dr. René Von Schomberg, said in January 1998: "Our current knowledge does not provide us with the means to predict the ecological long-term effects of releasing organisms into the environment. So it is beyond the competence of the scientific system to answer such a question..." (see http://www.psrast.org/eudircom.htm). Moreover, there are a number of reasons to expect ecological disturbances that mostly are likely to be irreparable (see for example http://www.psrast.org/ctenvir.htm).

We hope that the government of Brazil will realize that it has been misled by the biotechnology "proponents".

Much too little is known about the environmental consequences and the safety of the use of GE foods to justify any approval. But enough is known to suspect the possibility that the consequences may be problematic.

This is the reason why we demand a global moratorium on the release of GE organisms and on the use of GE foods, see http://www.psrast.org/declport.htm (in Portuguese).

For the Portuguese translation including Press Release, click here: