News in Brief2001-12-16 GE crops failThe marketing of biotech crops has strongly emphasized that they will give higher yields and will demand less chemicals, thereby being more friendly to the environment than conventional crops. This overview of a number of scientific studies concludes that, in fact, these crops are neither more productive nor do they require less spraying with toxic chemicals. The marketing has been so effective that farmers believed that they had greater productivity while in reality the yields were smaller. University of Minnesota economist Vernon W. Ruttan sums up: "Thus far, biotechnology has not raised the yield potential of crops". Neither was the herbicide use lower: In 1998, genetically engineered RR soybeans was treated with 30% more herbicide on average than on conventional varieties in six US states. Analysis thus shows that RR soybean systems are "…not likely to reduce herbicide use or reliance". As for RR corn, USDA data suggest that in 2000, the average RR corn acre was treated with about 30% more herbicide than the average non-GM corn acre. A University of Nebraska report shows that farmers are using the technology to needlessly destroy weeds to get a "weed-free" field. The study demonstrates not only reduced profits, but also destruction of biodiversity. 2001-12-16 Mice prefer non-GE foodIn a series of experiments it was found that mice who were given the option to choose between GE and non-GE food of the same kind, mostly preferred the natural variety.
2001-11-04 Considerable increase of foodborne diseases in the US
|
CommentConsidering the inherent genetic instability due to the nature of genetic engineering it seems likely that this directive will stop all GE organisms if strictly applied. This is a highly responsible decision of EU as the release of organisms with unpredictable genetic setup have a completely unpredictable effect on the environment.
|
2001-08-05
A recent test has revealed that genetically engineered Roundup Ready (RR) soy does not have the genetic setup declared by the manufacturer (Monsanto). The inserted DNA is scrambled and so are adjoining parts of the plant DNA.
CommentThis is a consequence of the well known problem that inserted genes are unstable. In practice, this means that the GE plant on the field may not have the genetic setup it had when it was created in the laboratory. The unpredictable genetic changes that may occur due to this instability may, in the worst case, give rise to harmful substances. This adds to the risk for unpredictable harmful substances to appear due to the artficial insertion of foreign DNA (see "Why GE may cause the appearance of unexpected substances".). Soy is found in over 60% of all processed foods today. In the US and Canada, a considerable part is likely to be from RR GE soy, unless explicitly stated to be GE free. It may be found, among others, in infant formulas (mostly), ice-cream, bakery, meat products and pet food. When a food is "protein enriched", soy is commonly used. Soy oil is often used in cooking. It may be sold as "cooking oil" without declaration of the oil source. For more, see "GE foods on the market" |
2001-07-18
In a recently published scientific article in Advances in Agronomy, ten scientists analyse the value of organic farming. They find that it has significant advantages to industrial agriculture (which includes biotechnology), which is unsustainable due to incremental environmental damage. Moreover it has ruined millions of Third World farmers because of its dependence on costly fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides. While providing as good or better yields, organic farming has no harmful environmental impact and does not demand costly external inputs, making it ideal for poor farmers in the Third World. Excerpt:
| "The benefits of organic farming systems are relevant both to developed nations (environmental protection, biodiversity enhancement, reduced energy use and CO2 emissions) and to developing countries (sustainable resource use, increased crop yields without over-reliance on costly external inputs, environmental and biodiversity protection)." |
To the source: Can organic farming feed the world? .
See also our website section "Alternatives to GE"
2001-06-07
| "... some GMOs can possess genuinely new characteristics that may require greater scrutiny than organisms produced by traditional techniques of plant and animal breeding. Since long-term ecological impacts of GMOs may be extremely difficult to predict or study prior to commercialization, ESA strongly recommends a cautious approach to releasing GMOs into the environment." |
CommentThis weighty statement by a large group of environmental scientists is a major blow against present approval procedures. It confirms the opinion of PSRAST, stated already in our Declaration (january 1998), which demands a moratorium on the release into the environment of genetically engineered organisms until sufficient knowledge has been acquired to make it possible to judge if it is justifiable and safe for the environment to exploit this technology. For more details, see our document "Is there sufficient knowledge about environmental effects to justify release of GE organisms?" [ML] and our website section "Environmental hazards". To the source: ESA Statement on Genetically Modified Organisms, issued June 7, 2001. |
On May 10, China's State Council passed Regulations demanding labeling as the government finds that the consumer should have the right to choose.
2001-04-21
"Social Change and Development", a non-governmental organisation (NGO) in Tamil Nadu, south India has solved the problems that Vitamin A-producing GM rice addresses in a simple, natural and very cheap way.
They work with more than 300 villages and have eradicated problems of night blindness in children, brought on by vitamin A deficiency, and anaemia with women, both of which had been endemic in the area.
For vitamin A the NGO trains villagers to grow and eat papaya, pumpkins, carrots and other yellow vegetables. For iron deficiency, which causes anaemia, they use aloes, a hedging plant. All of these grow easily and cost virtually nothing.
As commented elsewhere, the GE "golden rice" is potentially hazardous, see "Vitamin A enhanced GE crops: potential problems". Furthermore, it appears likely to generate only a fraction of the additional vitamin A intake it once promised, see the news item: Benefits of "Golden Rice" greatly exaggerated. .
In addition, the use of any GE crops may cause unpredictable complications, see "Is our knowledge sufficient for safe use biotechnology?" and "Is there sufficient scientific knowledge to ensure safe commercial exploitation of genetically engineered foods?".
Considering that there are solutions that are simple, cheap, safe and easily practicable to solve the A-vitamin deficiency problem, the use of "golden rice" is not only unneccessary, it is irresponsible because there is not sufficient knowledge to exclude that it may cause unpredictable health and environmental complications.
To the article (No need for GM rice)
2001-04-19
The growth of genetically modified rice, wheat, corn and soyabean is banned because the governments fears other countries would refuse to buy them.
Last year (2000), Britain banned the import of Chinese soy sauce because it contained GM soyabean. China had used soyabeans imported from the US where half the output is genetically modified. The British ban prompted the decision.
In 1999 there was a turning point in the expansion of Food Biotechnology. This is documented in the archive of our former Newspage. Several countries began to apply a more restrictive policy in this field. Also in China labeling was considered due to rising concerns about potential health hazards, see Chinese legislator proposes GE labeling. Recently a food labeling regulation was passed in China.
The number of countries that have proclaimed partial or full ban on GE crops has been increasing steadily, see Regions banning some or all GE crops from their territory. [EL]. Even farmers in USA, the major GE food exporter, decreased their use of GE crops last year, breaking a trend of fast annual growth of this sector.
|
".....concern about genetically engineered crops is now coming not only from environmental and consumer groups but from farmers, who have generally supported such crops.....The North Dakota bill has made headway precisely because its main backers are some of the state's own farmers, not the usual biotechnology opponents."
Source: Farmers Joining State Efforts Against Bioengineered Crops. New York Times, 24 March 2001 URL: |
2001-04-13
Two new corn viruses have been discovered in the US. Their origin has not been elucidated. There is an unquestionable risk for new viruses to appear as result of recombination of DNA from the Cauliflower Mosaic Virus (CaMV) promoter present in GE crops and infecting viruses, see The Virus Hazard. Some research indicates that viruses created in this way may tend to be less species specific and more aggressive than the natural varietes. Some scientists have warned that new such viruses might cause extensive damage to crops and to the environment.
2001-03-21
A group of scientists propose that DNA from genetically engineered plants might cause changes or disturbances in soil microorganims such that soil ecology is disrupted. Soil fertility is greatly dependent on the very complex interplay of soil microorganims. If this hypothesis is right cultivation of GE crops might damage soil fertility.
The article concludes that therefore all GE plants should be withdrawn until this potential hazard has been carefully investigated, see:
2001-03-05
All genetically eningeered crops contain bacterial DNA. This DNA contains a genetic element (the so called "CpG motif") that stimulates the immune system to start inflammation. Exposure to these genetic elements may lead to promotion of inflammation, arthritis and lymphoma (a malignant blood disease).
Furthermore, ingested DNA sequences large enough to contain whole genes have "survived" digestin and entered the blood and tissues.This means that eating GE foods may increase the risk of said disorders
2001-02-15
|
"As the scientific and the political mainstream have both come to identify with corporate aims, so their established power structures are brought to bear on squashing scientific dissent and engineering consensus." |
Comment
This article confirms and extends the viewpoints in our editorial "Dysfunctional Science". Science is rapidly loosing its independence, especially in fields that are of economic importance to the industry. For example, the industry has exerted a strong pressure on international organs to approve the release of GE organisms and their use as food, using dependent scientific experts as an "alibi". If scientists had been fully independent of the industry, the commercial application of GE organisms would certainly not have been approved because of seriously incomplete knowledge about the safety of GE.
2001-02-12
|
"In everyday language the talk is about a gene for this and a gene for that. We are now finding that that is rarely so. The number of genes that work in that way can almost be counted on your fingers, because we are just not hard-wired in that way." (12 February 2001).
Dr. J. Craig Venter, Time's Scientist of the year (2000). President of the Celera Corporation. Dr. Venter is recognized as one the two most important players in the worldwide effort to spell out the 3 billion "letters" of the human genome. |
The basic dogma of genetic engineering is that genes are carriers of specific traits. The findings of the Human Genome project confirms our opinion that this dogma is untenable, as further explained in our article "The new understanding of genes" (from 1998).
The important connotation of this is that it can be said with certainty that artificial insertion of genes is unlikely to yield only the "desired effect" of the inserted gene. Unexpected effects on other parts of the genome can be expected to be the rule rather than the exception.
It is no more justified to assert that genetic engineering is high-tech science mastering its results. Rather it is groping in the dark - a roulette game with seriously incomplete knowledge of the consequences.
This is a major reason why PSRAST demands that genetic engineering of every kind should be strictly confined within laboratory walls until science knows what it is doing when engineering genes - which will certainly take several decades if not a century or more.
2001-02-10
Benefits of "Golden Rice" greatly exaggerated|
"I agree with Dr Shiva that the public relations uses of golden rice
have gone too far."
|
This statement came as an apology for greatly exaggerated claims about the benefits of GE so called "golden rice", made by biotechnology proponents in a world-wide propaganda campaign for it. This rice has been genetically engineered to produce vitamin A, the deficiency of which is a common cause of blindness among undernourished people in the Third World.
The golden rice has been used worldwide as a "propaganda weapon" for the technology. Now its developer, Rockefeller Foundation, admits that it appears likely to generate only a fraction of the additional vitamin A intake it once promised. In addition there are reasons to question the usefulness and health safety of such a product even if a strain could be developed that would generate significant amounts of the vitamin, see "Vitamin A enhanced GE crops: potential problems"
To the source: The Guardian (UK), Saturday February 10, 2001
2001-02-06
|
"The experts [at the Royal Society of Canada] say this approach [of 'substantial equivalence'] is fatally flawed for genetically modified, or GM, crops and exposes Canadians to several potential health risks, including toxicity and allergic reactions" Toronto Star, 5 Feb 2000 |
The Royal Society organizes the most distinguished scientists in the country and corresponds to e.g. US National Academy of Sciences. This is another in an increasing number of statements by leading scientists directly or indirectly rejecting this principle, see GE food approval principle rejected by important bodies of scientists [EL]
All GE foods on the market in all countries have been approved on the basis of this "flawed principle" of Substantial Equivalence and are therefore not safe to eat. For more, se our Open letter that demands that all these foods should be withdrawn from the market.