PART 3 Problems in different fieldsAgriculturalNo increased productivity and no decreased herbicide useStudies are indicating that the profitability of GE crops for farmers may not be as expected. A report on over 8000 university-based field studies has found lower yields and increased use of herbicide compared to conventionally bred soy (see Genetically Engineered Roundup Ready Soy crops less profitable than conventionally bred varieties [EL].Findings by the U.S. Department of Agriculture demonstrate that such crops do not produce a higher yield and fail to reduce the use of pesticides: American experts studied GM soya beans, maize and cotton being grown across huge tracts of the U.S. farming belt. They found no increase in yields from crops in 12 of 18 areas. Farmers in seven of 12 areas studied used the same amount of pesticide as those growing traditional crops. The findings shoot down the favorite arguments of the Biotech industry that these crops could help stop hunger in the Third World through higher yields. They also disprove claims that the plants, engineered to include their own pesticide, would need to be sprayed less often with chemicals.A report in New Scientist magazine says U.S. officials admit that the figures don't support the argument that genetic engineering brings revolutionary improvements to agriculture. Other studies indicate unexpected ecological problems including damage to beneficial insects, see Environmental issues, agricultural aspects. [Added: 09/09 1999:] Connection between glyphosate (Roundup from Monsanto) and Cancer. A recent study by oncologists Dr. Lennart Hardell and Dr. Mikael Eriksson in Sweden, concluded that exposure to the herbicide glyphosate was associated with increased risk for Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (NHL), a kind of cancer. They stress that with the rapidly increasing use of glyphosate since the time the study was carried out, further epidemiological studies should be done. (15 March 1999 Journal of American Cancer Society). Plants resistant to Glyphosate represent a considerable portion of genetically engineered crops. [End] [Added: 27/09 1999]Cattle at some US farms reported to refuse to eat GE feedSome farmers in the US have, independently of each other, reported cases of cattle and other animals avoiding GE crops as food. In one case the cattle went through a field of RoundUp ready corn, not touching it and broke through a fence and ate non-GE corn. In another case weight loss occurred in the cattle after switching to GE feed. An organic farmer says he had a great problem with deer eating his non-GE soy beans, while the field with RoundUp Ready beans across the road was left untouched by them. Likewise raccoons did not touch any Bt corn but ate plenty of non-GE corn. These are just a few examples of reports from different sources.After four months of collecting such anecdotal evidence from Kansas and Wisconsin, reporter Steven Sprinkel thinks it is time to make a more thorough investigation. (Source: US farmer, ACRES, USA Special Report, Steven Sprinkel, 19 September 1999.) CommentThis is anecdotal evidence, of course not proving the case. But concordant reports from different sources cannot just be dismissed. They deserve scientific verification. If the observations can be verified, the next question appears - is this behavior caused by just some impalatability or may it be that the animals are sensing unhealthy qualities of the GE crops? Animals are known to have a good ability to sense harmful qualities in their food. This highlights the great need for long term GE feeding studies as we have long been demanding. Would they reveal additional cases of such harmful effects as reported by Dr Pusztai in the long term study of rats eating GE potatoes? [End]Major Blow against Genetically Engineered Hormone (rBGH) MilkThe FAO organ, Codex Alimentiarius decided in August 1999 to support the rBGH moratorium of the European Union. This ruling represents the first major blow against the GE industry.Recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH)has been extensively used to increase milk production in cows in the US since FDA approved it in 1994. However it causes suffering to cows, including udder infections (resulting in increased antibiotics concentrations in milk), reproductive problems and lameness. In addition it causes increases of a hormone that has been proven to increase the risk of breast and prostatic cancer in humans. In spite of this Monsanto has been pressing hard to make the European Union approve its use. The handling of this issue by the producer Monsanto, including suppression and manipulation of research data, gives reasons to doubt the company's reliability in GE food safety issues according to Professor Samuel Epstein, see Codex Alimentiarius decided to support rBGH moratorium. [EL].[End] [Added: 15/09 1999] [Added: 30/09 1999] Plastics from GE crops not profitableMonsanto has been developing GE crops capable of producing plastic materials. Recently the company released a story to the press in UK that biodegradable plastics could be developed this way. However British BBC noted that the yield of plastics from such crops is too low to be profitable. Scarlett Foster, spokeswoman for Monsanto, has since confirmed that this way of producing plastics is not economically viable. So Monsanto stopped this development project already in 1998.(Reuters, Sept 28).
CommentOther reasons than economical may be more important for not developing such a product. Questions have been raised about potentially serious ecological effects from plastic containing plants. What might, for example, happen to animals, beneficial birds and insects eating parts of the plants? What might happen to the ecology if such genes got astray (which they tend to do) and spread uncontrollably in weeds and wild plants? Environmental complications would need careful interdisciplinary ecological long term investigations before release can be considered safe of plants producing plastics. Why did Monsanto bring out information about a GE product that they already found unprofitable in 1998? Was this another failed attempt to improve the scarred image of genetic engineering? [End] Reactions of scientific experts(These are just a few of the most important ones out of considerable number)Reputed GE technology supporter warns about GE foods - a major blow to the GE industryDr Andrew Chesson, vice chairman of European Commission scientific committee on animal nutrition, is well known to have been a supporter of food biotechnology. Now he admits that current food safety tests are unreliable. Therefore he warns that potentially disastrous effects may come from undetected harmful substances in GE foods. (Source: Daily Mail, UK, 13 Sept 1999). CommentThrough this warning, Dr Chesson joins in with another internationally reputed food scientist, Dr Arpad Pusztai. However, when Pusztai expressed a very similar warning in August 1998, he was fired and became subject to strong attempts at destroying his credibility. Clear lies were used and flawed "evaluations" of his research were made, see World renowned scientist lost his job when he warned about GE foods - The Pusztai case. We can only hope that Chesson will not be another victim of the systematic endeavour of the biotech lobby to suppress the truth. PSRAST has long been warning for this hazard, pointing out the inadequacy of present testing (see Substantial equivalence versus scientific food safety assessment). We have been greatly worried about the refusal among leading scientists in the field to admit this in spite of the obvious reasons we have pointed out. We find it very satisfying that now a leading EU scientist agrees with us. It seems that the powerful biotechnology lobby begins to loose its censoring grip over leading scientists. The only way to avoid the potentially serious danger from GE foods is to immediately withdraw all of them from the market. This includes all the GE foods approved today in the US, Europe and elsewhere as there has not been adequate testing in any single case. [End] [Added: 07 1999] British doctors call for Biotech Moratorium The British Medical Association (BMA), which represents 115,000 doctors, recently called for a complete moratorium on biotech crops in Britain until extensive research is carried out to determine the safety of these crops. The BMA report, The Impact of Genetic Modification on Agriculture, Food and Health, says that detailed research is needed into possible toxicity of GM food and whether eating it could lead to the development of new allergies and antibiotic resistance in humans. [End] Reactions of the Business sectorLeading insurance firms warn about insuring risks of genetic engineeringGenetic engineering is potentially one of the most "exposed technologies of the future", says the report "Genetic engineering and liability insurance" of The Zürich-based Swiss Re, an influential re-insurance company (such firms insure the risks of insurance companies). "Is the insurance industry perhaps being too rash in its dealings with genetic engineering?" it wonders.The report questions the possibilities of insurance companies to fulfil their role as risk carriers to the genetic engineering industry. It says that the insurance industry "must have a clear conception of the nature and size of those risks". How can genetic engineering risks be insured, asks the report, when there is no clear conception of them? "Today we must assume that the one-sided acceptance of incalculable risks means than any participants in this insurance market run the risk not only of suffering heavy losses, but also of loosing control over their exposure". [Added: 16/08 1999:] Essentially the same thinking is found in the May 6 issue of The Post, an insurance magazine, where an underwriting manager for insurance giant Cigna International suggested business insurers go slow on policies which cover GM-selling companies. The experience from other products the potential dangers of diving into issues before we have an adequate awareness of the exposures," wrote Cigna official Maunce Pullen.[End] Comment: This agrees well with our conclusion that there is highly insufficient knowledge about health and environmental risks from GE foods and crops. Such statements are likely to greatly decrease the possibilities of GE companies to obtain risk insurance in the future. As presently marketed GE foods have not been tested properly, there is a risk for a large scale disaster, that would lead to a crash of an uninsured or insufficiently insured GE company. (For more about food safety, see Substantial equivalence versus scientific food safety assessment [EL] ). Leading equity trading firm closes it biotechnology investment unit In April 1999 Rothschild's Management equity trading subsidiary in UK announced that it would close the biotechnology investment unit that was founded 18 years ago. [Added: 27/08 1999:] Europes biggest bank advises investors to sell biotech sharesIn August 1999, Deutsche Bank released a report saying that increasing negative feelings are creating problems for biotech companies including Monsanto and Novartis. It has been sent to thousands of the largest institutional investors in the world.The report notes that Monsanto spent over $1.5m in vain to in an attempt to win the English consumers. The bank finds that food producing companies, food retailers, grain processors, and governments are indicating that they are not ready for GE foods. The bank warns that culturing GE crops might bring losses to farmers. And that food companies will find it too risky to sell food with GE ingredients. Finally the report warns that the biotech stock market could collapse. Already nine months ago, the Washington analysts of the Deutsche Bank, Frank Mitsch and Jennifer Mitchell, warned that the biotech industry seems to meet the same future as the nuclear industry did in the US. Now they are surprised how rapidly this prediction appears to come true.[End] [Added: 14/9 1999]First case of insolvency due to investor pessimism about GE prospectsAxis Genetics, a producer in UK of vaccines from GE plants, has entered insolvency proceedings. The reason, according to the Chief executive Iain Cubitt is that investors are worried about the prospects of companies dealing with GE. (Source: PA News, September 7, 1999) [End] [Added: 16/09 1999]Two major companies considering pullout from GE businessIn August this year AstraZeneca in UK indicated that it might sell its agrichemicals business including the section dealing with development of GE foods. Novartis in Switzerland, which is a another major biotech company, indicated on the 15th of September that it is considers to spin off its agribusiness division which includes the GE section. Both companies are also leading drug producers. Analysts believe that involvement in GE food development may damage the image of the pharmaceutical business. But decreased sales due to increasing resistance to GE foods is probably the major factor contributing to the doubts about continued involvement in GE business. Because of this, Novartis already earlier this year announced a reduction by 1.100 jobs in its agricultural division. Now Novartis has announced that the job cuts will be even larger. (Source: Guardian, UK 16/09 1999)
CommentWhat company will be next to announce doubts about its future commitments to GE? - Monsanto in the US perhaps? It is the world's GE business leader. The company has experienced a fall of about 40% of its share price in one year (from 62 USD in September 1998 to 37 USD in the middle of September 1999). [End]Monsanto hints change of biotech policy - may abandon GE in UKMonsanto, has offered to help plant breeders create new varieties of crops using traditional cross-breeding techniques. It has a large gene databases of "genetic profiles" that they think could help traditional breeders develop crops suitable for specific soil, pest types and other environmental conditions. While formerly crossbreeding was time consuming, based on trial and error, this knowledge might contribute to more rapid and efficient breeding. Patrick Holden of the Soil Association participated at a meeting with Monsanto's senior executives, commented: "What was said has huge significance. It shows that Monsanto is thinking about reversing their whole strategy. We believe Monsanto is open to a full rethink of what it is doing."(Source: The Observer, UK, 26/9/99)
CommentThis news came 11 days after we suggested that Monsanto might be the next major company to change GE policy, see "Two major biotech companies consider pullout from GE business" from 16/09 . However, it should be noted that this presently goes only for the UK as a response to the strong resistance to GE crops there. It cannot be taken as an indication that Monsanto is about to change its policy worldwide. As a compensation, the company might even consider increasing it present efforts to establish strongholds in developing countries. [End] CONCLUSIONThe exploitation of GE foods today is highly premature. It has no support in sound science and violates basic ethical principles. Use of GE foods will result in the exposure of millions of people to potential health hazards from largely unnecessary products. Culturing GE crops means an exposure of nature to potentially serious and irreparable damage.We are convinced that, considering the steadily growing and world-wide opposition due to increasing awareness of the truth about GE foods, it won't take long before a global moratorium will be agreed upon. [Added: 15/09 1999] Now that it is becoming recognized that all presently approved GE foods are unsafe, because the test methods used are inadequate for detecting unexpected harmful substances, it should a matter or short time before they all have to be withdrawn for the market. [End] Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Application of Science and Technology (PSRAST) First published: July 5, 1999. We want to thank Ronnie Cummins, editor of Foodbytes, and Richard Wolfson, editor of GE News Reports and Mark Griffiths, editor of "Will GM crops deliver benefits to farmers?", for valuable information used in this document.
If you want to learn more about genetic engineering, we suggest you
start with:
Website Announce Page. "Genetically Engineered Food - Safety Problems" News Introductory articles Health hazards Environmental hazards Global issues Safety issues Alternatives to GE FAQ About us What You can do Membership E-mail How to sponsor us |