GENETIC MODIFICATION of Food Crops

The case against genetically modified food crops.

  Those who promote genetically modified (GM) food insist that their products are essential to feed a growing global population. Nothing could be further from the truth. An increased reliance on Genetically Modified food crops will lead us on a path that will only increase hunger and food insecurity.
We are told by scientists involved in promoting GM food crops as a solution that this is simply an extension of traditional cross-breeding. This too is untrue. When we breed crops or animals using conventional, sexual reproduction, half of the genetic information from each partner is transferred to the offspring. Only closely related species can breed in this way. Even a horse and a donkey cannot produce viable offspring; sterile mules are usually the result.
Yet when genetic engineering is used to breed plants or animals, the genes (the part of the cell with the information containing the blueprint of life) from completely unrelated species can be cut, copied, shared and shifted between any living organisms, using technical methods. Most of the present GM crops on the market contain fragments of viral, antibiotic, bacterial and synthetic genes, something that would ordinarily be impossible. We can move genetic information between humans, frogs, whales, trees, insects and fruit, to name just a few possibilities.
GM food crops are therefore very clearly different from conventional, naturally bred crops yet those who promote GM crops continue to misrepresent not only what is involved but even basic facts about the performance, testing, safety and regulation of GM crops and food. They do not yield higher or produce better food. Both laboratory studies and anecdotal reports demonstrate that animals will not willingly eat GM foods, given the choice.

Better, healthier, less chemicals?
Promoters of GM food crops claim they require fewer chemicals and increase yield. These claims are dispelled by independent analyses that clearly demonstrate that increased amounts of chemicals are applied to GM crops. It is notable that all corporations producing and marketing GM seeds were historically chemical manufacturing companies. Thus most GM crops are linked to the use of chemicals produced by these corporations, their use having markedly accelerated since GM crops were introduced.
Beside this, the most widely grown GM food crop – herbicide resistant soya – achieves lower yields than conventional soya and is therefore less profitable due to increased chemical inputs. The only reason that most GM crops are grown at all is because their cultivation suits intensive, industrial scale monocrop farms, resulting in economies of scale. This reduces labour inputs: over 50, 000 have been lost in the cotton industry in South Africa alone since the introduction of GM cotton. Almost 90% of South African cotton production is claimed to be GM. Any cost advantages will inevitably be eroded by licensing agreements and technology fees over time. In fact by 2005 the area of South Africa under cotton cultivation had dropped by over 80% since the introduction of GM cotton.
There is also the problem of concentrating seed distribution by the GM industry. In 2005 Monsanto Corporation - responsible for over 90% of GM global plantings and holding patents on nearly 100% of GM crops grown in South Africa - became the worlds biggest seed company. Any short-term gains from using of GM seed will inevitably be eroded as monopolies increase their stranglehold. There have been several cases of spectacular failure of GM crops in Indonesia, India and the USA. In some cases the state has had to assist affected farmers as corporations refuse to accept responsibility or liability.

Most tested?
GM crops have not been tested on humans and flawed methodology has been applied. The actual GM plants and toxins in them have not been used in the tests – non-identical, naturally occurring counterparts have been substituted in most cases. In 2005 two experiments again highlighted some risks. The first Australian test of GM peas on rats found them to become prone to skin and lung allergic reactions, even when the peas were cooked. A Russian study found that rats eating GM soya showed a highly significant increase in the mortality of young rats, compared to those fed natural soya. These tests reinforce the dangers raised by earlier studies archived at http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/pusztai.html
A remarkable amount of genetic scrambling – or rearrangement - has been shown to occur in GM crops. For more on this, go to http://www.i-sis.org.uk/UTLI.php
This raises many questions about the fundamentals of the process of genetic engineering. It is not properly understood just how GM affects non-target sections of the genome and how subsequent generations can be affected. Excellent explanations of this have been compiled by Dr Barry Commoner, archived at http://qcpages.qc.cuny.edu/CBNS/
Despite the fact that the corporations which directly benefit from the sale of GM crops insist their products are safe, they have refused to accept any liability, and will not commit to redress if anything does go wrong. Even so we will be unlikely to be able to pinpoint any relationship as these corporations refuse to label or track their products. We are effectively conducting a corporate experiment at public risk.

Environmental safety.
Similarly to food safety, environmental testing has relied on toxins that differ from those in GM crops. This ignores the effects of the different genetic ‘cassettes’ and consequent genetic scrambling in GM products. Both Canada and US/EU studies have emphasised shortcomings in such studies. http://europa.eu.int and http://www.rsc.ca give further background. The journal “Science” quoted US government scientists that, "key experiments on both the environmental risks and benefits are lacking.”
Product developers claim that GMOs are equivalent to natural crops unless proven otherwise. On the other hand the are deemed different enough to be unique and patentable. This glaring contradiction is but one of many in this debate.
Secrecy and control.
Scientists from agencies testing GM products such as the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have expressed concern about relying on data provided by the developers of GM products. Besides claiming that GM food is similar to related, natural crops, this shortcoming is compounded by commercial interests claiming that basic safety and environmental data is “commercially confidential” and thus cannot be publicly shared. We can be certain that if this data did provide proof of safety it would be released and it is only commercially confidential because of the potential damage its release could cause. This was emphasised in 2005 in a case in Germany when the group Greenpeace forced disclosure of such data which showed that there were serious safety concerns that were being covered up by Monsanto in a GM crop.
A South African court recently found that the public interest was being compromised by the lack of data released by GM corporations such as Monsanto. The State has accordingly been forced to release this data to the appellant, Biowatch, but not if deemed to be “commercially confidential.”
GM promoters claim that nobody has fallen ill from consuming GM food, a claim that is demonstrably baseless as nobody is monitoring for problems. Where does one even begin to look if insufficient data is available from GM developers and if the food is unlabelled?

More food for the starving?
Using poverty and hunger to justify the introduction of GM crops is one of the most misleadingly cynical marketing ploys in recent history and has been widely condemned by African leaders. It also ignores the fact that there sufficient food is produced globally to supply a balanced diet to every living human. It is far more important to address excessive agricultural subsidies paid by developed nations while simultaneously dealing with fundamental agricultural problems like improving soils, transport and storage infrastructure for food crops amongst developing nations.
Africa’s genetic wealth must be retained for the benefit of her people. The contamination of crops by patented GM genes cannot be allowed - this would legally enable all contaminated crops to be claimed by the corporation holding the patent. This will inevitably result in a reduction in plant varieties and genetic diversity while also creating a dependence on these privately owned products. Africa must become independent of external inputs and not increase its dependence on corporate inputs as the USA and industry insists. 
Poor, less developed nations do not need technical quick fixes but must instead address systemic shortcomings in agricultural production. GM technology utterly fails to deal with these problems and in fact exacerbate them. GMO’s hinder any resolution of food security and sovereignty throughout this region in both their present and in proposed forms.
Genetic engineering is not the solution, it is a continuation and even an exaggeration of existing agricultural production problems that will only increase global inequity and resign the global South to the role of a vassal to the rich, developed North. The South will become both a dumping-ground for unwanted products - as is already happening. But even more worryingly, it will become a resource for northern corporations that wish to appropriate our biological diversity for their own ends in a repeat of a well-established pattern of colonial exploitation. This is the new colonialism – bio-colonialism - and genetically modified crops herald its vanguard.

As previously published in Enviropaedia

Back to Ekogaia Home Page