You have reached iGreens.org.uk. In December 2006 we moved to iGreens.org with faster servers and discussion boards. Click here to follow us.
|
You have reached iGreens.org.uk. In December 2006 we moved to iGreens.org with faster servers and discussion boards. Click here to follow us. |
|
Biotech
Food Myths, Misconceptions and Misinformation -- On June 15, a group of anti-biotech organic food activists calling
themselves the "Independent Science Panel" issued a report called The
Case for a GM-Free Sustainable World, regarding crops and foods improved using
modern biotechnology techniques. That report makes a series of claims regarding
bioengineered crops that is not supported by the depth and breadth of extensive
scientific and economic data collected in laboratory tests, field trials and
commercial cultivation over the past two decades. The following report from the
AgBioWorld Foundation is a point-by-point refutation of those assertions. Myth 1. Activists say: "GM crops failed to
deliver promised benefits." FACTS: Crops improved through biotechnology enjoy farmer satisfaction
levels in the high 90% ranges, and these new varieties have penetrated the
market at rates never before seen in agriculture. The reasons are very simple:
Despite the desperate denials of activists, these crops deliver value to
farmers, including lower overall costs and more efficient methods for
controlling insect pests, weeds and diseases with reduced environmental impacts.
This is why the overwhelming majority of farmers have freely chosen to plant
biotech improved crops year after year once they try them. As a direct result of the introduction of biotech improved crops,
pesticide use has been dramatically reduced, and herbicide use has shifted from
older, narrow spectrum and higher toxicity compounds to the newer generation of
broader spectrum lower impact formulas (see Gianessi et al. studies at
www.ncfap.org). There have been no confirmed crop failures with biotech-improved
crops. The rare, ephemeral case of alleged under-performance seems to be
associated with the use of inferior starting varieties unrelated to the
biotechnology-mediated improvement. Myth 2. Activists say: "GM crops [are]
posing escalating problems on the farm. The instability of
transgenic lines has plagued the industry from the beginning, and this may be
responsible for a string of major crop failures. A review in 1994 stated, 'While
there are some examples of plants which show stable expression of a transgene
these may prove to be the exceptions to the rule. In an informal survey of over
30 companies involved in the commercialisation of transgenic crop
plants…almost all of the respondents indicated that they had observed some
level of transgene inaction. Many respondents indicated that most cases of
transgene inactivation never reach the literature.'" FACTS: Predictions of widespread problems based on this ten-year-old
article have since been shown by vast experience with commercial crops to be
incorrect. Commercialized biotech varieties go through more screening and
scrutiny, in advance, in depth and detail, than any other new crop varieties in
history. The sort of instability alleged, which does happen rarely during
product development, is routinely eliminated by companies for obvious reasons.
In fact, data demonstrating stable Mendelian inheritance of the transgene are
required as a matter of law by regulators. Myth 3. Activists say: "Triple
herbicide-tolerant oilseed rape volunteers that have combined transgenic and
non-transgenic traits are now widespread in Canada. Similar
multiple herbicide-tolerant volunteers and weeds have emerged in the United
States." Facts: Claims that herbicide-tolerant volunteer plants have become
problematic for Canadian growers of oilseed rape (known as canola in North
America) are both false and misleading. Most canola growers in Canada do not
have any problem with herbicide tolerant volunteers, as different herbicides or
cultivation remain satisfactory control measures. Unlike conventional or organic
crops, biotech improved pest resistant crops have, from the beginning, been
marketed with stewardship programs in place to forestall the evolution of the
type of pest resistance scientists have in fact seen with conventional and
organic crops. Indeed, as the activists note in the quoted passage above, the
few cases of herbicide tolerant canola (oilseed rape) volunteers includes those
that have inherited the herbicide-tolerance trait from conventionally modified,
rather than bioengineered varieties. Myth 4. Activists say: "Extensive
transgenic contamination [is] unavoidable. Extensive
transgenic contamination has occurred in maize landraces growing in remote
regions in Mexico despite an official moratorium that has been in place since
1998." FACTS: It is odd that some activists find the natural process of pollen
flow to be alarming when it comes from precisely improved biotech crops that
require fewer pesticide sprays, but are unremarkable from conventional crops or
wild plants. To use this natural biological phenomenon as a tool to foment fear
represents a significant departure from anything supportable by science. IF
pollen from biotech crops has carried DNA from biotech improved varieties into
Mexican landraces, it is because the landrace stewards have continued their
age-old practice of importing foreign genetic material as a source of new
variation to use in improving the ever dynamic and evolving manmade corn
varieties. The biotech traits involved, if transferred, would not present any
kind of threat; instead, they would add value to these varieties by enabling the
landraces to resist insect pests or herbicides. If the landrace stewards do not
find these traits desirable they can easily eliminate them through selection. A
pure or static crop landrace has never existed and could not exist. Myth 5. Activists say: "GM crops [are] not
safe." FACTS: Crops improved through biotechnology have undergone more safety and
environmental testing than any crop varieties in history, and have been produced
and consumed by humans and animals in millions of tons around the world for
years. They have been proven as safe as the scientific method permits, by every
valid method known to science and medicine. There is, to date, not a single
solitary confirmed case of human or animal illness or disease associated with a
biotech crop. Nor has a single negative environmental impact been credibly
attributed to biotech-improved varieties. The entire body of this vast
experience has shown these crops to be at least as safe as, and in many ways
safer than, conventional crops and foods. See the recent International Council
for Science report (www.icsu.org)
for a synthesis of the scientific studies on this topic, or refer to the bibliography
of published scientific studies on the AgBioWorld Foundation website (http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech_info/articles/gen_safety.html).
Beyond the safety approval of three U.S. government agencies, both the American
Medical Association and British Medical Association, as well as dozens of other
scientific bodies, have said that there are no food safety concerns with
currently commercialized biotech crops. Myth 6. Activists say: "The principle of
'substantial equivalence', on which risk assessment is based, is intended to be
vague and ill-defined, thereby giving companies complete licence in claiming
transgenic products 'substantially equivalent' to non-transgenic products, and
hence 'safe'." Myth 7. Activists say: "Dangerous gene
products are incorporated into crops." FACTS: Bt proteins are used because of their excellent and well-documented
specificity for narrow groups of insect pests, as well as their long history of
safe use by organic and non-organic farmers. Activists inconsistently claim
there are safety issues when used in biotech crops, but they make no such
representations when they are used indiscriminately and without regulatory
oversight by organic farmers. This appears to demonstrate that the activists do
not believe their own arguments about safety. Myth 8. Activists say: "Food crops are
increasingly used to produce pharmaceuticals and drugs." Facts: Food crops used to produce pharmaceutical compounds provide a
highly promising way to increase the safe and effective production of vital
medicines to treat crippling diseases at lower costs to producers and patients.
Furthermore, scientists have vast experience deriving medicinal and industrial
compounds from plant sources. Indeed, canola (oilseed rape), which is one of the
most important food crops in North America, is a conventionally modified variety
of the same plant species used to produce industrial lubricants that are toxic
to human beings. It is disingenuous to oppose the use of biotech improved food
crops for producing medical or industrial substances, while condoning the use of
canola. Perhaps activists do not oppose canola consumption precisely because
growers and processors have an outstanding record of safe production and
segregation. Myth 9. Activists say: "Terminator crops
spread male sterility. Crops engineered with 'suicide' genes
for male sterility have been promoted as a means of 'containing', i.e.,
preventing, the spread of transgenes. In reality, the hybrid crops sold to
farmers spread both male sterile suicide genes as well herbicide tolerance genes
via pollen." FACTS: Sterile plants, by definition, cannot leave offspring and so are
incapable of "spreading sterility." Furthermore, no
"terminator" plants have ever been marketed. They remain an abstract
concept described in a patent application. But if some day in the future they
are ever produced, or if other genetic use restriction technologies are
developed and deployed, they are likely to be an excellent, safe, and robust
method of mitigating potential gene flow in those rare instances where such gene
flow might be undesirable. Myth 10. Activists say: "Broad-spectrum
herbicides [are] highly toxic to humans and other species.
Glufosinate ammonium and glyphosate are used with the herbicide-tolerant
transgenic crops that currently account for 75% of all transgenic crops
worldwide. Both are systemic metabolic poisons expected to have a wide range of
harmful effects, and these have been confirmed." FACTS: Allegations that herbicides like glyphosate pose realistic safety
threats to humans and animals are simply false, as can be ascertained by anybody
who takes the time to consult the review documents prepared by government safety
regulatory agencies or the toxicological literature. These compounds target
cellular receptors and metabolic pathways unique to plants that are absent from
animals. They have received the strongest findings of safety from regulatory
agencies and none of the negative consequences alleged by activists for human
health are confirmed from their use. Even the group Environmental
Defense, rates glyphosate as among the least hazardous of the chemicals
included in its extensive database (http://www.scorecard.org/chemical-profiles/). Myth 11. Activists say: "Genetic
engineering creates super-viruses." FACTS: Recombinant DNA techniques for the first time enable researchers to
study viruses in detail and in ways previously unavailable. These help
scientists determine the functions and modes of action of virus genes as a
prelude to developing effective new therapies and means of disease prevention.
Recombination among viral strains is commonplace in nature, and this is neither
new nor limited to crops improved through biotechnology. In order to ensure that
biotechnology does not unwittingly exacerbate this problem, regulators routinely
follow the recommendation of experts in the field and prohibit the introduction
of sequences from exotic viruses into crop plants being grown outside the
natural ranges of those viruses. Myth 12. Activists say: "Transgenic DNA in
food [is] taken up by bacteria in [the] human gut. There is
already experimental evidence that transgenic DNA from plants has been taken up
by bacteria in the soil and in the gut of human volunteers. Antibiotic
resistance marker genes can spread from transgenic food to pathogenic bacteria,
making infections very difficult to treat." FACTS: There is ZERO EVIDENCE to support concerns that functional genes
might be taken up from food, transgenic or otherwise, by bacteria in soil or the
human digestive tract. Even if the antibiotic marker genes occasionally used in
early biotech crops were so absorbed, they would not even be detectable against
the pre-existing background of antibiotic resistance genes found widely in human
intestinal flora. There is a strong consensus among medical experts in microbial
antibiotic resistance that the clinical problems of antibiotic resistance stem
from medical or patient mishandling of antibiotics, to which the mechanics of
agricultural biotechnology are wholly irrelevant. Myth 13. Activists say: "Transgenic DNA
and cancer. Transgenic DNA is known to survive digestion in
the gut and to jump into the genome of mammalian cells, raising the possibility
for triggering cancer. The possibility cannot be excluded that feeding GM
products such as maize to animals also carries risks, not just for the animals
but also for human beings consuming the animal products." FACTS: This is a totally fabricated concern contradicted by vast
experience and for which there is absolutely no supporting data. Any link
between transgenes and cancer is purely fictional. Myth 14. Activists say: "CaMV 35S promoter
increases horizontal gene transfer." FACTS: There are no data to support this fantasy. The ubiquity of
widespread natural mosaic viruses in cauliflower and its close relatives,
broccoli, cabbage, canola and others, and the demonstrated anti-cancer effects
of a diet rich in such vegetables, eloquently refutes this manufactured concern. Myth 15. Activists say: "[There's] a
history of misrepresentation and suppression of scientific evidence." FACTS: Activist claims have been thoroughly evaluated by the community of
scientists and measured against replicable findings in published and
peer-reviewed literature. Their speculative and sometimes bizarre claims
routinely and repeatedly fail to survive this scrutiny. This is not because
evidence is suppressed, but rather because activists are consistently frustrated
in their search for credible evidence that might justify their claims. Myth 16. Activists say:
"In conclusion, GM crops have failed to deliver the promised
benefits and are posing escalating problems on the farm. Transgenic
contamination is now widely acknowledged to be unavoidable, and hence there can
be no co-existence of GM and non-GM agriculture. Most important of all, GM crops
have not been proven safe. On the contrary, sufficient evidence has emerged to
raise serious safety concerns, that if ignored could result in irreversible
damage to health and the environment. GM crops should be firmly rejected
now." FACTS: This "conclusion" has been shown to be false in each of
its several components by the preceding refutations. The facts are that crops
improved through biotechnology have, in advance of their use, been subjected to
more rigorous scrutiny, in depth and detail, than any others in history.
Wherever farmers have been allowed access to such crops they have adopted them
at unprecedented rates and inspired the highest levels of farmer loyalty because
they deliver value on multiple levels, to the farmer, to the environment, and to
consumers. In the end, if genuine and systemic agricultural problems have arisen
from, or ever do arise from, biotech enhanced crops, then farmers will abandon
them. The fact that farmers continue to embrace bioengineered crop varieties provides ample evidence that they HAVE been beneficial to the farm. And the fact that the overwhelming majority of scientists, as well as every major scientific organization that has evaluated the safety of biotech crops, find them to be as safe as or safer than conventional crops, provides ample evidence that health and environmental issues have been adequately addressed. SUBSCRIBE: Send email to join-agbioview@comet.sparklist.com
|
|
You have reached iGreens.org.uk. In December 2006 we moved to iGreens.org with faster servers and discussion boards. Click here to follow us.
Send mail to enquiries@igreens.org.uk
with
questions or comments about this web site.
|