GMO Myths and Truths

Recommendations

Info

for 2010 was twice the cost of conventional seed and reflected a 143% increase in the price of GM seed since 2001. 127 US farmers have grown increasingly concerned about the high price and poor performance of GM seed. A 2011 media report said that the seed companies had responded by withdrawing a high-performing non-GM variety of maize, which gave higher yields than GM varieties. The report added that the companies are hiking the prices of herbicides used by non-GM farmers to artificially increase the cost of non-GM production. 128 Farmers have little choice but to tolerate such price hikes because of consolidation within the seed industry. In other words, the GM industry dictates which seed varieties are available. In 2008, 85% of GM maize patents and 70% of non-maize GM plant patents in the US were owned by the top three seed companies: Monsanto, DuPont, and Syngenta. Even these three companies are not independent of each other but increasingly network to cross-license GM seed traits. 131 The largest of the big three companies is Monsanto. In 2010 Monsanto raised its prices for its RR2 soybeans and SmartStax maize seeds so steeply that the US Department of Justice launched an investigation into the consolidation of agribusiness firms that has led to anticompetitive pricing and monopolistic practices. Farmers actively gave evidence against companies like Monsanto. 132,133 The same pattern has been reported in India. Moreover, as prices of GM Bt cotton seed have escalated, 134 non-GM varieties – in some cases better-performing than the GM varieties – have been withdrawn from the market. 135,136 The result is that farmers are forced into dependency on the GM industry. Such reports expose claims that GM crops increase “farmer choice” as misleading. 5.9.2. Conclusion The economic impacts of GM crops on farmers are variable and depend on complex factors. However, consolidation in the seed market has led to steep increases in the price of GM seed as compared with non-GM seed. This consolidation has also led to competing high-performing non-GM seed varieties being withdrawn from the market, restricting farmer choice. The importance of independent information Some who claim that GM crops bring economic benefits to farmers cite upbeat reports written by Graham Brookes and Peter Barfoot. But such reports are not independent. Brookes and Barfoot are the directors of a private consultancy firm called PG Economics, which has GM and agrochemical firms as its primary clients. 129 Generally, PG Economics’ reports are commissioned by GM firms or industry lobby groups such as Agricultural Biotechnology in Europe, 130 whose members include the large GM seed companies. Most PG Economics reports are not peer reviewed and rely heavily on industry data. GMO Myths and Truths 86
5.10 Myth: GM crops can “coexist” with non-GM and organic crops Truth: Co-existence means widespread contamination of non- GM and organic crops “OK, we know that cross-pollination will occur but we’ve got thirty years of experience to say we know how far pollen will travel. And therefore what we’ve done is we’ll grow a GM crop at a distance away from a non-GM crop, so the people that want non-GM can buy non-GM, and the people that want GM can buy GM. The two will not get mixed up. Everybody will have the right to choose.” – Paul Rylott, seed manager for Aventis CropScience (now Bayer) 137 The GM industry used to claim that GM contamination of non-GM crops could not occur. After it became clear that this was false, it shifted the argument to lobbying for “co-existence” of GM, non-GM, and organic crops. The industry now argues that farmers should be able to choose to plant GM crops if they wish and says that no serious problems are caused for non-GM and organic farmers. But experience has shown that the arrival of GM crops in a country removes choice. “Coexistence” rapidly results in widespread contamination of non-GM crops, resulting in lost markets. Contamination occurs through crosspollination, spread of GM seed by farm machinery, and inadvertent mixing during storage. Farmers are gradually forced to grow GM crops or have their non-GM crops contaminated. Scientific studies confirm that GM contamination is unavoidable once GM crops are grown in a region. For example, GM herbicide-tolerant oilseed rape (canola) seed can persist and remain viable in soil for years. GM herbicide-resistant “volunteers” – plants that were not deliberately planted but are the result of germination of residual GM seeds from crops previously grown in the field – were found growing ten years after the GM oilseed rape crop had been planted. 138 GM herbicide-resistant oilseed rape was found to be thriving in the wild in North Dakota, often far from areas of agricultural production. GM genes were present in 80% of the wild canola plants found. 139,140 5.10.1. Who is liable for GM contamination? In countries where legal liability for GM contamination is clearly established, GM crop cultivation has become severely restricted. In Germany, a law has been passed making farmers who grow GM crops liable for economic damages to non-GM and organic farmers resulting from GM contamination. 141,142 The law has virtually halted the planting of GM crops in the country because farmers are not prepared to accept liability for contamination. 142 The fact that farmers who previously chose to grow GM crops have ceased to do so because of the fact that they could be held liable for damages is clear evidence that coexistence is impossible. In light of this, it is not surprising that the GM seed industry has lobbied forcefully against the implementation of similar liability laws in the US and Canada. The GM seed industry also knows it cannot contain or control its GM genes. In February 2011, after years of industry lobbying, the EU dropped its policy of zero tolerance of animal feed with unapproved GMOs, allowing contamination of up to 0.1%. 143,144 In doing so, it granted industry release from liability for damages resulting from GM contamination with up to 0.1% of GM crop varieties (“Low Level Presence”) that are under evaluation but not yet approved in the EU. In the United States, federal courts have recognised that GM crops are likely to contaminate non-GM crops. Two court rulings reversed US Department of Agriculture (USDA) approvals for the commercial planting of GM sugar beet and GM alfalfa. The courts ordered the USDA to halt planting of the GM crops until it had completed an environmental impact statement GMO Myths and Truths 87
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: 5.9 Myth: GM crops bring economic b
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 and 106: Agriculture cannot continue to depe
Page 107 and 108: 7.1 Myth: GM crops are needed to fe
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?