 |
|
The real GM food scandal This is posted as a response to the nonsense being put about by Lord Dick Traverne of The Association of (non) Sense About Science in a recent article published in Prospect Magazine, aimed at decision makers in the UK and elsewhere. MY COMMENTS IN RED 8 November 2007 A measured response - The real GM food scandal | Scandal About Genetically Modified Foods This article is reproduced for educational reasons to demonstrate how the Pro GM lobby abuses truth and reality to force their point across. From http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=9876 November 2007 Dick Taverne is the author of The March of Unreason: Science, Democracy and the New Fundamentalism (OUP) GM foods are safe, healthy and essential if we ever want to achieve decent living standards for the world's growing population. Misplaced moralising about them in the west is costing millions of lives in poor countries. Seven years ago, Time magazine featured the Swiss biologist Ingo Potrykus on its cover. As the principal creator of genetically modified rice—or "golden rice"—he was hailed as potentially one of mankind's great benefactors. (Another hype job by Time magazine, that paragon of objective journalism, no doubt) Seven years later, the most optimistic forecast is that it will take another five or six years before golden rice is grown commercially. The realisation of Potrykus's dream keeps receding. Could this have something to do with the fact that the levels of Vit. A were initially too low to produce the desired effects, which was apparently addressed in 2005 only two years ago, not seven? And lets not forget that the pro GM lobbyists shouted down anybody who remarked that these Vit. A levels were indeed too low to make any difference! The promised benefits from other GM crops that should reduce hunger and disease have been equally elusive. Perhaps this is because we are looking in the wrong place? We produce enough food globally to feed everyone on earth a balanced diet. The fact that starvation and malnutrition exists is because of the global market driven system and its reliance on a profitable market. The problem is systemic and cannot be remedied by an imagined quick fix silver bullet like GMOs are portrayed to be. None of these crops is yet on the market. What has gone wrong? Were the promises unrealistic, or is GM technology, as its opponents claim, flawed— because of possible harm to human safety or the environment or because it is ill-suited to the needs of poor farmers in the developing world? Public discussion of GM food in the British media, and throughout Europe, reflects a persistent suspicion of GM crops. Supermarkets display notices that their products are "GM-free." Does anybody notice that Traverne has failed to answer his question? Can I? Well, perhaps these crops are not yet on the market because we simply don’t want them. It’s not just about Science Dick. It’s also about choice. Like Kosher is a choice, Halaal is a choice. You want GM food, you eat it. And inform anybody else who is about to eat it ALL about it before you feed it to them, okay? To do otherwise is dishonest and misleading. Sales of organic food, promoted as a natural alternative to the products of modern scientific farming, are increasing by about 20 per cent a year. Indeed, EU regulations, based on the precautionary principle, provide safeguards against "contamination" of organic farms by GM crops; they require any produce containing more than 0.9 per cent GM content to be labelled as such, with the clear implication that it needs a health warning and should be avoided. This is nonsense – it’s not a health warning, it’s about choice. Don’t put false propositions into your argument Dick. This causes a major conflict over GM soya beans imported from America. With whom? Monsanto, last time I checked? Seldom has public perception been more out of line with the facts. Au contraire my dear man – it’s the fact that the more the public knows, the less they like GM food crops. The public in Britain and Europe seems unaware of the astonishing success of GM crops in the rest of the world. Again, au contraire, they are all too well informed of the problems. No new agricultural technology in recent times has spread faster and more widely. It is notable exactly which crops have spread – two main varieties are insect resistant maize, and chemical resistant soy, with some insect resistant cotton and some canola – all primarily sold and licensed by a few transnational seed and chemical corporations. Only a decade after their commercial introduction, GM crops are now cultivated in 22 countries (out of 132? This is success?) on over 100m hectares (out of an estimated 1,700m/ha? Another huge success!) (an area more than four times the size of Britain) by over 10m farmers, of whom 9m are resource-poor farmers in developing countries, mainly India and China. (And here I would ask for the source of these figures – before we go scrabbling too far for them, may I suggest Traverne may have been relying on ISAAA – a rabidly pro GM front group). Most of these small-scale farmers grow pest-resistant GM cotton. In India alone, production tripled last year to over 3.6m hectares. This cotton benefits farmers because it reduces the need for insecticides, thereby increasing their income and also improving their health. (There are of course lots and lots of stories highlighting the failures of GM cotton, but again, lets not allow a few facts get in the way, eh Dick?) It is true that the promised development of staple GM food crops for the developing world has been delayed, but this is not because of technical flaws. It is principally because GM crops, unlike conventional crops, must overcome costly, time-consuming and unnecessary regulatory obstacles before they can be licensed. (This is another spurious claim – the primary reason they have not been adopted is because GM maize, canola and soy are primarily adopted for industrial farming models and not for small farming operations, whereas cotton can fit into the small farming operation, even though it is often associated with increased farmer indebtedness, something that suits the commercial model of agriculture but not the farmers – farmer suicides are cited as having risen sharply in India because of this.) The alleged risk to health from GM crops is still the main reason for public disquiet—something nurtured by statements by environmental NGOs (Umm, how about scientists, Dick?) , who in 2002 even persuaded the Zambian government (now here is a completely mendacious and self perpetuating falsehood – The Zambian government was NOT persuaded by anybody, they made a decision on their very own. It may amaze some lobbyists like Traverne that African governments are quite able to make up their own minds but such is the mindset of the neo-colonialist and bio-colonialist. The reason that the Zambians made this decision was because they had no biosafety safeguards in place and did not want to permit contamination of open pollinated local varieties and land races by GM food aid. This story is so well documented that is really surprising that Traverne has not got the message – but then again perhaps he does not want to.) to reject food aid from the US at a time of famine because some of it was derived from GM crops. This allegation of harm has been so soundly and frequently refuted that when it is repeated, the temptation is to despair. But unless the charge is confronted, contradicted and disproved whenever it is made, its credibility will persist. The fact is that there is not a shred of any evidence of risk to human health from GM crops. (Nope, not a shred, but quite a substantial body of material that is constantly increasing in volume and severity – again I suggest anybody who doubts this reads Genetic Roulette and Seeds of Deception, both by Jeffrey Smith, which sets out the regulatory scams and scientific concerns in easy to understand terms – hell even Dick should get it if he bothered to read them…..) Every academy of science, representing the views of the world's leading experts—the Indian, Chinese, Mexican, Brazilian, French and American academies as well as the Royal Society, which has published four separate reports on the issue—has confirmed this. (It may be worth commenting here that these organisations do not do testing but rely on desktop studies from various sources, which includes the originators of the GM crops – does anyone see the bias in the system here? The corporate political nexus?) Independent inquiries have found that the risk from GM crops is no greater than that from conventionally grown crops that do not have to undergo such testing. (Independent inquiries by Whom one wonders? I have seen several independent inquiries that show just the opposite. It all depends who you believe I guess. I would go with science, not hearsay from propogandists every time……) In 2001, the research directorate of the EU commission released a summary of 81 scientific studies financed by the EU itself—not by private industry—conducted over a 15-year period, to determine whether GM products were unsafe or insufficiently tested: none found evidence of harm to humans or to the environment. (Perhaps because they have not ever been tested on Humans? And perhaps because they did not adequately show that they were sufficiently tested? Or is that simply an omission on Travernes part? Whatever the facts Traverne is again cherry picking as a more recent EU report does not say anything of the sort!) Indeed, the nature of GM technology makes it unlikely that it is more dangerous than conventional farming. Now we are really talking! Conventional farming is probably the biggest single threat to our global ecosystem and so anything that is comparable to that is OK, hey Dick? Throughout history, farmers have sought to improve their crops by cross-breeding plants with desirable characteristics. Cross-breeding, however, is a lottery and its consequences cannot be easily predicted. Not strictly true – its governed by informed science and anyrate new biotechnological devices such as MAB (marker assisted breeding) opens entire new vistas that do not entail shifting genes between species or scrambling sequences) Small genetic changes that are desirable may be accompanied by others that are undesirable. And of course this never happens with Genetic engineering, hey? It may take generations of back-crossing to eliminate unwanted characteristics. The process is therefore not only unpredictable but slow and expensive, and may even be risky. And GM is not? One of the most effective standard methods of breeding to obtain improved crops is to bombard seeds and plants with gamma rays to alter their DNA by causing mutations, some of which can then be selected for a desired trait. (Incidentally, organic farmers, in their desire to avoid artificial chemicals, are even more dependent than conventional farmers on crop varieties generated by irradiation. Yet another spurious claim. All of the organic farmers I know try to source heritage varieties that are not irradiated at all and that come from a time before irradiation was even dreamed of.) Irradiation alters both chromosome structure and genome sequence in a way that is quite random. Moreover, there is no legal requirement to test such irradiated products either for effects on health or for what they might do to the environment. Which makes GMOs okay? By contrast, genetic modification in the laboratory introduces a well-characterised gene or genes into an established genetic background without big disruption. No, no big disruption, just gene scrambling and little details like that. What such modification does is what plant breeding has always done, but more quickly and accurately. This point is one where the hubris behind GM always tries to hide. GM is not what is always done. It is entirely different to conventional breeding as it crosses species boundaries, previously impossible. It is not accurate, it is random and causes unintended consequences as above. Opponents often argue that GM technology is different because it can transfer genes between species. But again, this is nothing new, as during evolutionary time genes have moved between species naturally. That is why we have such a diversity of plant life. This is another little misleading red herring – random interspecies transfer only naturally occurs between closely related species or by infection and then has to wend its way through the evolutionary process of selection. GM is a huge shortcut that holds profound dangers, especially given our lack of knowledge and has no similar controls to natural processes. Also, those who oppose genetic modification in agriculture often embrace the technology in medicine. The human insulin used to treat diabetes, for example, is genetically engineered: the human gene that codes for insulin has been transferred into bacteria and yeast, a process that involves crossing the species barrier. By what rationale can the technology be safe and ethical when saving lives in medical treatment, but not when used to make plants resistant to pests in order to save people from hunger? Simply because medicines are tested on humans through three strict phases and that a reporting system occurs at each phase. They are then labelled and tracked through the medical system. GM crops have no tracking as they are not labelled, making complete nonsense of the claim that no sickness has ever occurred from GM foods. If its not tracked, we simply don’t know and its unscientific to make such a claim. Interestingly some problems have indeed been noted with the GM insulin. Some opponents of GM crops, who seem to have realised that the argument based on lack of safety has no basis, now focus their opposition on environmental concerns, arguing that GM crops destroy biodiversity. Does he make this up as he goes, one wonders? It would be wrong to claim that the planting of GM crops could never have adverse environmental effects. But their impact depends on circumstances, on the particular crop and environment in which it is grown. Such effects occur with all sorts of agriculture. Worldwide experience of GM crops to date provides strong evidence that they actually benefit the environment. They reduce reliance on agrochemical sprays, (the use of glyphosate and other sprays have sharply increased in tandem with the sale of chemical resistant crops) save energy, (but not as much as organic farming), use less fossil fuels (umm, is this the same as saving energy? I presume that using more chemicals and fertilisers has nothing to do with increasing fossil fuel use?) in their production and reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases. And by improving yields, they make better use of scarce agricultural land. This is clearly being made up as he goes. Spins a good story with no backing. It is notable that the most widely grown GM crop globally, GM soy, has a lower yield than natural soy varieties. There are other recent agricultural interventions that have increased yeilds far more than GM crops have. These findings were reported by Graham Brookes and Peter Barfoot of PG Economics in a careful study of the global effects of GM crops in their first ten years of commercial use, from 1996 to 2005. They concluded that the "environmental impact" of pesticide and herbicide use in GM-growing countries had been reduced by 15 per cent and 20 per cent respectively. Energy-intensive cultivation is being replaced by no-till or low-till agriculture. More than a third of the soya bean crop grown in the US is now grown in unploughed fields. Apart from using less energy, avoiding the plough has many environmental advantages. It improves soil quality, causes less disturbance to life within it and diminishes the emission of methane and other greenhouse gases. The study concluded that "the carbon savings from reduced fuel use and soil carbon sequestration in 2005 were equal to removing 4m cars from the road (equal to 17 per cent of all registered cars in the UK)." Again, to add balance to this report we need to consider where the figures for these studies came from and who stood most to gain from a beneficial outcome. It boils down to the old bugbears – who stands most to gain and the abuse of statistics to build a case, something at which this unscrupulous industry is a past master. One other effect of GM crops may be the most significant of all. In the next half century, the world will have to more than double its food production to feed the over 800m people who now go hungry, the extra 3bn expected by 2050 and the hundreds of millions of people who will, as living standards rise, acquire a more western lifestyle and eat a great deal more meat. Does everyone have to eat more meat to improve lifestyles or do we do something about discouraging meat consumption at the excessive and life threatening levels seen in the developed world? There are, after all numerous ways to improve food production that have nothing to do with GM crops and even the most rabidly pro GM advocates admit GM technology is only one possible angle to pursue. Again more hype, hubris and polemic than reality. At the same time, the world is running out of good farming land and water resources. Shortage of land already causes subsistence farmers in Indonesia and South America to slash and burn tropical forests. This is an invidious and unsubstantiated claim. Indonesia, Malaysia and other forest areas are disappearing for palm oil plantations to feed biofuel demand in the developed world. South American cerrado and Amazonian forest are disappearing largely as a result of increased growth of cattle ranching and more relevant to this debate – the increased growth of soya plantations for animal feed. Much of this soya is GM which is grown as it is suited to industrial farming processes. It employs only a few people for every thousand hectares, increasing social dislocation from the land and other negative effects, just as the palm oil plantations do half a world away in Indonesia. Traverne is again citing extremely limited issues in a misleading manner. Given the evidence (umm, could someone provide that evidence and not provide reviews of studies made by GM corporations and their paid lackeys please?) about the safety of GM crops and their beneficial environmental impact, (ditto) and given the global success of GM cotton, maize and soya, why have so few staple GM food crops been licensed for commercial growth? Why are the benefits of golden rice, drought or salt-resistant crops, plant-based vaccines and other GM products with special promise for the developing world so long delayed? Could this perhaps be because most of them do not yet exist in any form that has passed even the most broad review processes? *** The story of Potrykus's golden rice suggests one explanation. The development of the product itself was a great scientific achievement. A bacterial gene together with two genes from the daffodil were inserted into rice to make it synthesise the micronutrient "ß-carotene," which when eaten is converted into vitamin A. This process took ten years. Many more years were spent, with the help of Syngenta and other biotech companies, in solving the patent problems to enable golden rice to be made available to small-scale farmers without royalty payments. Then began the struggle to obtain regulatory approval. First, although it is agreed even by those opposed to the technology that the presence of ß-carotene in the rice grain presents no possible risk to the environment, no experimental small-scale field trials are permitted. They are too, but they have to first pass containment tests, as stated. So all rice plants must be grown in specific plant growth chambers in greenhouses— processes that take three years. Each plant must be shown to be the product of one gene transfer into the same part of its DNA. Is there a problem with this? If so, what?
It is ironic that other varieties of rice grown all over southeast Asia have been shown to be "genetically modified" (please note the inverted commas here – this rice is not GM in the true sense of the word but is cross bred, a completely different issue. These are naturally occurring events, not artificial induced changes, in the main.) too, but accidentally as the result of mutations, chromosomal recombinations, translocations of pieces of DNA and even deletions of sections of DNA. This rice is consumed everywhere without the requirement of any laboratory tests. Another example of polemic and bias that runs through Travernes article like a golden thread. The (is it THE way or simply A way? I suggest the latter not the former) scientific way of ensuring that crops are safe is to test the product, not the process. Given the degree of technological intervention in this case it seems sensible, practical and advisable to test both the product and the process. Perversely, regulations in the US as well as Europe require the opposite. Untrue, they require both but avoid testing of the product as it is deemed to be ‘substantially equivalent,’ one of the most egregious abuses of scientific terminology and one that Traverne doubtless considers suitable? For goodness sakes, even his government deems it questionable. The result is that it takes much longer and costs at least ten times as much to bring a new GM crop to market as an equivalent conventionally bred crop. As Potrykus has pointed out, no scientist or scientific institution in the public domain has the funding or the motivation to go through such an expensive and drawn-out procedure. Only large companies or the most richly funded charities can and the only projects companies are likely to back are those that make big profits. Producing rice that saves the lives or the eyesight of millions of the poorest peasants offers no great financial rewards. Let’s just turn this last argument around. There is very little reason to use this risky, high tech intervention when the consumption of a proper diet, consisting of green veg and fats (both essential for the absorption of Vit. A – and both absent from golden rice!!) effectively solves the problem. This is rather a problem of education rather than intervention. Secondly non-GM foods have been found to contain suitable levels of Vit. A to do exactly what Golden Rice is proposed to do. Golden rice is a poster child, a hyped intervention used by punters like Traverne who fail to look at the big picture throughout their apparently objective but actually profoundly subjective lens. Why is a technology which has so much to contribute impeded by regulations that make no sense? Part of the blame lies with the large agrobusinesses. Yay, yes, lets blame it on Monsanto and Syngenta! At least we agree on something! Furthermore, although tight regulation was backed by some supporters of GM who believed it would reassure the public, it has had the opposite effect. If governments appear to think it necessary to take extreme precautions, the public will conclude that the technology must be dangerous. This is an egregious and self-serving claim by Traverne, again stated without a shred of evidence. Polemic presented as fact. A third element has been mistrust of multinationals. This has intensified opposition to GM crops because it is widely felt that companies are the main, if not the only, beneficiaries—and that, since they are responsible for most of the development of the crops, this must be subject to the strictest possible regulation. Umm, perhaps this was an accurate conclusion – Monsanto was after all responsible for Agent Orange, DDT, PCBs and all sorts of other delightful chemicals! The broader driving force behind the excessive regulation of GM crops, however, is the cult (Note use of word cult - could we not turn this around and claim Traverne of being part of a cult of pro GM hotheads??) of "back to nature," which has also inspired the propaganda (note - not debate but PROPOGANDA!! Like Traverne is not using the same style as he accuses others of using?) against agricultural biotechnology as a whole. This particular claim is utter bullshit – there is no other word for it. Those opposed to GM technology have taken pains to point out that they are not opposed to biotechnology generally or agricultural biotech specifically – their concerns revolve primarily around GM technology, finish and klaar. There is MAB, soil innoculation, tissue culture etc which are all varieties of agricultural biotech that are not at all controversial. This claim simply shows up Travernes bias and his cheerleading style of debate that is completely removed from reality. This cult has many manifestations. One is the popularity of organic farming, which is based on the manifestly false principle that artificial chemicals are bad and natural chemicals good. A popularity driven by the free market – organic farming has greater market acceptance than any other agricultural innovation over the past decade – and for good reason (also here). Another is the rising fashion for alternative, non-evidence based medicine. This is a long shot but it irks the very same folk who support GM technology – the gene giants and Big pharma! Could this shift towards natural and traditional medicines perhaps be because hundreds of thousands are made ill by side effects of commercial pharmaceuticals whilst the negative effects of natural medicines are lower by degrees of magnitude? The dogmatic (lovely adjective – dogmatic! Applies to dogmatic supporters of GM too! J) opponents of GM crops in Europe believe that interference with the genetic make-up of plants is essentially a moral issue. Well, is it not an issue of personal choice that these corporations tell us we are free to have, as long as it does not mean labelling their GM products? Is there not a moral issue here too? Is there no moral and ethical choice to be made or do we have to rely on nonsense about science being touted as the be all and end all? It is to be condemned as part of mankind's sinful attempt to control nature, which contributes to global warming, to epidemics of cancer and all the blights of modern life. Umm, has technology not had rather significant negative effects on these issues and have not the initiators of these problems – the petrochemical cluster, Big pharma and others - tried their hardest to avoid regulation whenever possible? *** In the light of this undercurrent of anti-science sentiment, what are the chances that the obstacles to the spread of GM crops will be overcome? Again I must reiterate a clarion call – its not less science we want, its more. When problems are raised in scientific studies it is essential that the studies are repeated and refined to cover wider parameters, not to narrow studies to avoid finding problems as has happened time and again with GM technology. There are grounds for hope. In 2006, the House of Commons select committee on science and technology recommended "that the term 'precautionary principle' should not be used" and should "cease to be included in policy guidance." What a good idea – lets just chuck out a principle that is written into international agreements and regulations. Brilliant. There are also encouraging signals from the British government. Earlier this year, the then environment secretary, David Miliband, announced that there was no evidence that organic food is more nutritious than conventionally grown food. To which he has been shown to be in denial, not the river, as linked above. In principle, the government has declared itself ready to license GM crops and has supported their promotion in Europe.Yay! Its remarkable how out of step the UK government is on this issue with its electorate. Furthermore, there are significant signs of change in several European countries. Spain has successfully grown GM maize for some years. But the biggest change of attitude seems to be in France, where the number of hectares on which GM crops are cultivated has increased from 500 to 50,000 in three years. The fact that French farmers are becoming convinced of the commercial benefits of GM is likely to have a big impact on the rest of Europe. ROTFL!!!!!!! Just to remind Traverne that dear old Pres. Sarkozy has placed a moratorium on GM insect resistant crops (as are most of the crops cultivated in France at the moment. The Europeans remain highly sceptical, simply because they use the best scientific analysis and do not rely on the risible US regulations which are basically ‘don’t look and you wont find anything.” But most important is GM's rapid spread in India and China. The Chinese government has declared that biotechnology could become its fastest-growing industry in the next 15 years. According to Clive James, (aah, Clive James, the selfsame head of ISAAA, the global cheerleader for GM crops which has in the past been caught out inflating its figures!!) author of the annual "Global Status of Commercialised Biotech/GM Crops" report, half the research and development of GM crops in the world will soon be done in China and will naturally concern crops that benefit the developing world. Which will probably not be patented like the present variety? Again, let’s not speculate, let’s wait for the facts. Its useful to note that China has its own concerns with GM crops and their regulation, an interesting field of research for anyone with a bit of time.China is already ahead in testing new strains of GM rice of potential benefit to 250m farmers. And let’s not forget their experiments on non-GM hybrid rice that have doubled yield, hmmm? While China's exports to Europe must comply with EU regulations, it also has a huge home market. India is not far behind and favours a light regulatory regime. The regulatory regime in India is under extensive legal challenge as the biotech industry has there, as elsewhere, enjoyed privileged access to regulatory processes. Finally, in Africa the Gates Foundation is committed to the improvement by genetic engineering of the staple crops on which most of the population depends. This is interesting – from what I have heard from the Gates Foundation they are not pursuing GM technology – is Traverne again cherry picking his information and abusing his audience with his polemic?Two years ago, the foundation announced its investment of millions of dollars in an ambitious programme building on the work of Potrykus and his colleagues, which aims to add the essential nutrients vitamins A and E, iron, zinc and improved protein to bananas, cassava, rice and sorghum. Dick appears to be out of date here again…….oh well……… There can be little doubt that GM crops will be accepted worldwide in time, even in Europe. Little doubt by Traverne and industry who remain out of step with public opinion. But in delaying cultivation, the anti-GM lobbies have exacted a heavy price. Their opposition has undermined agrobusiness in Europe and has driven abroad much research into plant biotechnology—an area in which Britain formerly excelled. Over-regulation may well cause the costs of the technology to remain higher than they need be. If proper regulation costs more than the supposed benefits then surely its not cost effective? Its notable that the GM crops on the market only benefit industrial farmers while the risks are borne by a public that is not allowed to know if these products are in their food in most places in the world, simply because this industry deems this to be so. If the stuff is so safe then what’s the problem blokes? Above all, delay has caused the needless loss of millions of lives in the developing world. These lobbies and their friends in the organic movement have much to answer for. Now here we have a major difference of opinion – for a change!! I await any and all figures on my comment line on this website on anybody who has died because they did not have GM crops at their disposal. Just one, never mind millions. Accordingly, I will leave it at that. I hope anybody who has read this far has at least enjoyed the read. Back to Ekogaia Home Page
|
