GMO Myths and Truths

Recommendations

Info

intercropping on rhizosphere soil microbes and nutrient contents]. Ying Yong Sheng Tai Xue Bao. Jul 2009; 20(7): 1597-1602. 31. Oquist KA, Strock JS, Mulla DJ. Influence of alternative and conventional farming practices on subsurface drainage and water quality. J Environ Qual. Jul-Aug 2007; 36(4): 1194-1204. 32. Driver A. CropWorld Global 2011: Changing our global approach to farming. Farmers Guardian. 1 September 2011. http:// bit.ly/LXmk2s 33. Pimentel D, Pimentel M. Food, Energy and Society. Niwot, CO: University Press of Colorado; 1996. 34. Pimentel D, Doughty R, Carothers C, Lamberson S, Bora N, Lee K. Energy and economic inputs in crop production: Comparison of developed, developing countries. In: Lal L, Hansen D, Uphoff N, Slack S, eds. Food Security and Environmental Quality in the Developing World. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2002:129–151. 35. Taverne D. The real GM food scandal. Prospect Magazine. 25 November 2007. http://bit.ly/JZvDz2 36. Brookes G, Barfoot P. Global impact of biotech crops: Socioeconomic and environmental effects in the first ten years of commercial use. AgBioForum. 2006; 9(3): 139–151. 37. Bindraban PS, Franke AC, Ferrar DO, et al. GM-related sustainability: Agro-ecological impacts, risks and opportunities of soy production in Argentina and Brazil. Wageningen, the Netherlands. Plant Research International. 2009. http://bit.ly/ Ink59c 38. Pimentel D, Hepperly P, Hanson J, Douds D, Seidel R. Environmental, energetic, and economic comparisons of organic and conventional farming systems. Bioscience. 2005; 55: 573–582. 39. Edwards S, Asmelash A, Araya H, Egziabher TBG. Impact of Compost Use on Crop Yields in Tigray, Ethiopia. Rome, Italy. Natural Resources Management and Environment Department, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. December 2007. 40. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA). Global status of commercialized biotech/ GM crops: 2010. ISAAA Brief 42-2010: Executive Summary. 2010. http://bit.ly/Li1eic GMO Myths and Truths 106
7.1 Myth: GM crops are needed to feed the world’s growing population Truth: GM crops are irrelevant to feeding the world “We strongly object that the image of the poor and hungry from our countries is being used by giant multinational corporations to push a technology that is neither safe, environmentally friendly nor economically beneficial to us. We do not believe that such companies or gene technologies will help our farmers to produce the food that is needed in the 21st century. On the contrary, we think it will destroy the diversity, the local knowledge and the sustainable agricultural systems that our farmers have developed for millennia, and that it will thus undermine our capacity to feed ourselves.” – Statement signed by 24 delegates from 18 African countries to the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization, 1998 “If anyone tells you that GM is going to feed the world, tell them that it is not… To feed the world takes political and financial will.” – Steve Smith, head of GM company Novartis Seeds UK (now Syngenta), public meeting on proposed local GM farm scale trial, Tittleshall, Norfolk, UK, 29 March 2000 GM crops are promoted as a way of solving world hunger at a time when the population is expected to increase. But it is difficult to see how GM can contribute to solving world hunger when there are no GM crops available that increase intrinsic yield (see Section 5). Nor are there any GM crops that are better than non-GM crops at tolerating poor soils or challenging climate conditions. Instead, most currently available GM crops are 7. FEEDING THE WORLD Section at a glance u GM crops are promoted as necessary to feed the world’s growing population. But it seems unlikely that they could make a significant contribution as they do not deliver higher yields or produce more with less inputs than non-GM crops. u Most GM crops are engineered to tolerate herbicides or to express a pesticide – properties that are irrelevant to solving hunger. u Hunger is not caused by a lack of food in the world. It is a problem of distribution and poverty, which GM cannot solve. u The IAASTD report, authored by over 400 international experts, concluded that the key to food security lay in agroecological farming methods. The report did not endorse GM, noting that yields were “variable” and that better solutions were available. u Agroecological farming has resulted in significant yield and income benefits to farmers in the Global South, while preserving soil for future generations. u GM is not needed to feed the world. Conventional plant breeding has already delivered crops that are high-yielding, disease- and pest-resistant, tolerant of drought and other climatic extremes, and nutritionally enhanced – at a fraction of the cost of GM. engineered for herbicide tolerance or to contain a pesticide, or both. The two major GM crops, soy and maize, mostly go into animal feed, biofuels to power cars, and processed human food – products for developed nations that have nothing to do with meeting the basic food needs of the poor and hungry. GM corporations are answerable to their shareholders and thus are interested in profitable commodity markets, not in feeding the poor and hungry. Even if a GM crop did appear that gave higher yields than non-GM crops, this would not impact GMO Myths and Truths 107
Page 1 and 2:
GMO Myths and Truths An evidence-ba
Page 3 and 4:
About the authors Michael Antoniou,
Page 5 and 6:
3.1.5. Regulators currently do not
Page 7 and 8:
Truth: Co-existence means widesprea
Page 9 and 10:
1. THE GENETIC ENGINEERING TECHNIQU
Page 11 and 12:
1.2 Myth: Genetic engineering is pr
Page 13 and 14:
ornamental plants. 9 It also includ
Page 15 and 16:
successfully incorporate the GM gen
Page 17 and 18:
“conventionally bred” varieties
Page 19 and 20:
inspection. Their scrutiny cannot e
Page 21 and 22:
Conclusion to Section 1 GM proponen
Page 23 and 24:
2. SCIENCE AND REGULATION 2.1 Myth:
Page 25 and 26:
of a protein (prion), a difference
Page 27 and 28:
data on GMOs available on the Inter
Page 29 and 30:
2.1.8. GM corporations and the US g
Page 31 and 32:
the defamation and intimidation cam
Page 33 and 34:
lacked proper controls. Both claims
Page 35 and 36:
18. Pusztai A, Bardocz S, Ewen SWB.
Page 37 and 38:
3. HEALTH HAZARDS OF GM FOODS 3.1 M
Page 39 and 40:
their lambs showed cellular changes
Page 41 and 42:
well known to have different effect
Page 43 and 44:
developing multi-trait crops becaus
Page 45 and 46:
3.2.2. Schrøder (2007) 23 A study
Page 47 and 48:
3.4 Myth: GM foods have been proven
Page 49 and 50:
However, the authors of a 1990 stud
Page 51 and 52:
3.6 Myth: GM Bt insecticidal crops
Page 53 and 54:
3.7 Myth: GM foods are properly tes
Page 55 and 56: acute allergenicity problems to a l
Page 57 and 58: 3.9 Myth: Genetic engineering will
Page 59 and 60: poor and hungry in the Global South
Page 61 and 62: 30. European Food Safety Authority
Page 63 and 64: sheep and pigs fed Roundup Ready ca
Page 65 and 66: 4.1 Myth: Roundup is a safe herbici
Page 67 and 68: 100% of air and rain samples taken
Page 69 and 70: 11. Romano RM, Romano MA, Bernardi
Page 71 and 72: “Over the past decade, corporate
Page 73 and 74: supposedly high-yielding GM soybean
Page 75 and 76: often use more glyphosate herbicide
Page 77 and 78: 5.4 Myth: GM Bt crops reduce insect
Page 79 and 80: has called GM crops “pesticide pl
Page 81 and 82: 5.6 Myth: Roundup is a benign and b
Page 83 and 84: fixation and reduce the growth of r
Page 85 and 86: 5.9 Myth: GM crops bring economic b
Page 87 and 88: 5.10 Myth: GM crops can “coexist
Page 89 and 90: 5.11 Myth: If GM contamination occu
Page 91 and 92: acterium, thereby creating a “sup
Page 93 and 94: een found to be unreliable and inco
Page 95 and 96: emergence of resistant and secondar
Page 97 and 98: mycorrhizal symbiosis in experiment
Page 99 and 100: Canada: Organic Agriculture Protect
Page 101 and 102: 6.1 Myth: GM will deliver climate-r
Page 103 and 104: 6.3 Myth: GM will solve the nitroge
Page 105: Agriculture cannot continue to depe
Page 109 and 110: A 2003 report on the project calcul
Page 111 and 112: Previously, agricultural markets we
Page 113 and 114: and the Caribbean have found that o
Page 115 and 116: 7.3 Myth: GM is needed to provide t
Page 117 and 118: King produced this example when und
Page 119 and 120: IAASTD report, commissioned by the
Page 121 and 122: LifeScientist. 12 March 2012. http:
Page 123: mixtures of chemicals in an attempt
show all

GMO Myths and Truths

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?