What to believe?

A personal letter to you are confused about Genetically Engineered (GE) Foods

Dear Reader,

You have good reasons to feel confused. The Biotechnology industry has invested very large sums to create a positive public opinion about GE-food. - Hiring leading PR firms as well as influential journalists and opinion makers. Not surprisingly this information has not been impartial and objective. Mostly its connection with the industry has not been apparent. Unfortunately it has dominated the information about GE-food in the media and contributed to confusion about the issue. Therefore we find it justified to reveal some of the most common misleading or untrue arguments.

This letter presents only the main arguments, with links to complementary information.

Jaan Suurküla MD

Chairman of PSRAST

Abbreviations:
GE= Genetically Engineered.
Text difficulty in links: [EL] = elementary level.   [ML] = medium level.   [AL] = advanced level.

Contents

• Arguments and counter-arguments

Common misleading, unsubstantiated or untrue arguments of the proponents:

• "Nothing new. We have been manipulating genes for thousands of years"
• "Just a way of improving the genetic make up of food"
• "There is no evidence that presently developed GE foods are harmful to health"
• "There is no evidence that presently developed GE crops are harmful to the environment"
• "GE-foods will save the world from global famine"
  

• What the Proponents don't say
  • Knowledge about the hereditary substance is far too incomplete to make it possible to know the effects of the insertion of a gene.
  • Genetic engineering is based on an outdated idea of genes.
  • The release into the environment of genetically engineered genes is irreversible.
  • No GE-foods of significant value to mankind have been produced so far.
    
• What commonly is most confusing to people:
  • Emphasizing benefits while neglecting important absence of knowledge
  • The misleading statement: "Stopping GE food means stopping progress"
    
• Whom to believe, us or them?
  
• Conclusion

Arguments and counter-arguments

The Biotechnology proponents have presented a positive picture of GE foods. Some of their most common arguments are:

1. "This is nothing new. We have been manipulating genes for thousands of years in breeding"
2. "Just a way of improving the genetic make up of food".
3. "There is no evidence that presently developed GE foods are harmful to health".
4. "There is no evidence that presently developed GE crops are harmful to the environment"
5. "GE foods will save the world from global famine through greatly improved crops"

The Biotechnology opponents have claimed that the arguments are misleading, half-truths or in some cases completely wrong.

Briefly, let us critically examine the arguments of the proponents:

1. "This is nothing new. We have been manipulating genes for thousands of years in breeding"

Comment: This is untrue and misleading. Conventional breeding does not manipulate genes. It just arranges mating of selected parents (see "What is genetic engineering?" [EL] ). As the molecular biologist Michael Antoniou says: "Genetic Engineering and conventional breeding are worlds apart". [EL]

2. "Just a way of improving the genetic make up of food".

Comment: This is misleading, giving the wrong impression that GE is a simple and safe way to change the genetic makeup. It neglects the important fact that the insertion of a foreign gene may lead to the appearance of unexpected substances that may be harmful and difficult to detect. See "GE Possesses Inherent Unpredictability" [EL].

3. "There is no evidence that presently developed GE foods are harmful to health".

Comment: Misleading as it gives the impression that the foods are safe. Absence of evidence does not prove safety. The truth is that it has not been established that any GE food on the market is harmless. The reason is that such research is very expensive and time consuming. So the industry has successfully pressed for an undue relaxation of safety regulations. See "Inadequate safety assessment of GE foods" [EL] revealing their serious inadequacy. See also Why this rapid increase of genetically engineered foods?

4. "There is no evidence that presently developed GE crops are harmful to the environment"

Comment: Misleading, in the same way as in the food safety argument. The truth is that it has not been established that any GE crop is ecologically harmless. The research to investigate long term environmental effects is very difficult and would take many years. So the industry has successfully pressed for an undue relaxation of regulations. See the conclusion of the expert appointed by the European Parliament to assess this issue: "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..."

Against this background the Parliament of the European Union decided to demand a moratorium on the release of GE crops in october 1998.

5. "GE-foods will save the world from global famine through greatly improved crops"

Comment: This is just an unproven hypothesis. No such crop has been developed so far. It is not certain that it will be possible to create crops that will contribute importantly to increased food productivity. See "Can genetic engineering produce crops that increase food production?" [ML]. Moreover, world hunger is not presently caused by food shortage. The cause is poverty, see "It is a myth that world hunger is due to scarcity of food" [EL]

What the Proponents don't say:

1. Basic knowledge about the hereditary substance is far too incomplete to make it possible to know the effects of the insertion of a gene. There are innumerable experiences of serious unexpected complications occurring when one manipulates incompletely known systems. See"Incomplete knowledge about DNA""[ML].

One example is the statement that genetic engineering may make agriculture more friendly to the environment, allowing the use of somewhat less poisonous herbicides (which is questionable). However, it remains to be established that the GE crops themselves do not constitute a greater environmental hazard than poisonous herbicides.

As long as it cannot be said for sure that GE crops will not cause irreparable genetic pollution and damage to the environment, their release cannot be justified. But most important: Even if GE crops were more friendly to the environment, this would not justify the exposition of millions of people to unknown health hazards from eating them.


2. "Stopping GE food means stopping progress"

This is another intentionally confusing argument that has been used successfully by the Biotechnology lobbyists. Real progress is based on responsible application of new knowledge, which requires careful investigation of the risks. This is clearly not the case here. See: "Is it progress to exploit Genetically Engineered food?"[EL]

Whom to believe, us or them?

Them?

Normally, people and decision-makers go by the opinion of leading scientists concerning the safety of commercial applications of advanced science.

But in this instance, the great problem is that very powerful business interests are involved. The Biotechnology industry has the outspoken aim to control a significant part of food production in the world by replacing natural crops with patented genetically engineered ones. This would mean gigantic profits.

Moreover, as pointed out by Peter Montague, it would mean political control over countries dependent on the patented crops, which may be one reason why governments of leading biotechnology countries now are backing this development heavily.

Many leading scientists are directly or indirectly dependent on the mighty Biotechnology industry. Or are under heavy pressure from them. Or are otherwise deeply involved in biotechnology. Therefore, scientific experts in this field are not reliable as advisors. And their safety evaluation is likely to be biased. See Dysfunctional science - Towards a "pseudoscientfic world order"? [EL], and "The Fallibility of Scientific Authorities"[EL] .

Us?

We don't represent any business interests or any political, ideological or religious direction. We are not against application of new technologies. So we are neither biased for or against genetic engineering. But we are strongly against exploitation before sufficient knowledge has been gathered to be able to ensure the safety of the technology.

But you don't need to take us as alternative authorities even if our ambition has been to make an impartial scientific evaluation of the safety assessment.

The solution

You don't need rely on any scientific authority at all. In stead, go by the authority of simple, true facts - they are clear enough!

The crucial facts are simple and easy to understand as explained in this web site. Many people believe that this issue is too difficult to understand for the layman. As this is not the case, and as biotechnology experts are likely to be unreliable advisors, governmental decisions should be made on the basis on personal insightful understanding of facts and not just on the basis of "expert" advice, as is commonly the case.

Conclusion

The problems and hazards with Genetically Engineered food can be reduced to some simple and straightforward points:

1. Their safety as food has not been established.
2. Their environmental safety has not been established.
3. Genes released into nature cannot be recalled. If damage occurs it may be irreparable.
4. The GE food products are of little if any value to mankind.

We find these facts fully sufficient to justify a demand for an immediate global prohibition of the release of GE-organisms and the use of them as food, see our Declaration [EL] .

If you look into our web site you will find more facts justifying a complete stop - a moratorium on the release and use of GE-foods. If you are a new visitor, we recommend you to go to the list of selected introductory articles at our index page: "Starting points."".