GMO Myths and Truths

Recommendations

Info

events to take place between an infecting virus and GM viral genes in the crop, thereby increasing the risk of new, mutated, and potentially more virulent strains of virus being produced. 185 Such viral mutation with increased virulence has been shown to occur under laboratory conditions. 186,187 To date only two GM crops engineered with genes from viruses have been commercialised: a variety of squash grown in the USA and Mexico, 188 189 and papaya cultivated in Hawaii. 190 There are no reports of any investigations to see if any new viral strains have arisen by recombination in these two crops. Interestingly, and quite unexpectedly, although the GM squash was resistant to viral infection, it was found to be prone to bacterial wilt disease following attack by beetles. 191 Conclusion to Section 5 Most of the benefits for farmers and the environment claimed for GM crops are either exaggerated or false. For example, contrary to frequent claims, GM crops have not increased intrinsic yield. Crop yields have increased over the past decades, but this is due to successes in conventional breeding, not GM traits. Neither have GM crops decreased pesticide use. The adoption of GM Bt maize and cotton has resulted in a slight decrease in the volume of insecticide sprays, but this decrease is likely to be unsustainable as pests gain resistance to the Bt toxins and secondary pests take over. Also, the reduction in insecticidal sprays is dwarfed by the massive increase in herbicide use caused by the adoption of GM herbicide-tolerant crops. The adoption of these GM crops has caused farmers to spray 383 million more pounds (174 million kg) of herbicides than they would have done in the absence of GM herbicide-tolerant seeds. This increase is largely due to the spread of weeds resistant to glyphosate, the herbicide most commonly used on GM crops. As a “solution” to the problem of glyphosate-resistant weeds, biotech companies have developed crops engineered to tolerate several different herbicides, including 5.12.5. Overall assessment of the risks of HGT by the above methods HGT events of all types are of very low probability of occurrence. The method with the highest probability of occurring is DNA uptake by bacteria in either the environment or the digestive tract. There is good evidence that this has already happened in the intestinal bacteria of humans who consume GM soy. The other scenarios are of significantly lower probability. However, given the extremely wide distribution of GM crops and their intended use over decades, these low probabilities translate into the likelihood that HGT events could actually occur even via the mechanisms that are expected to take place at lower probabilities. Therefore, the negative impacts and risks associated with HGT must be taken into account in considering the overall biosafety of any GM crop. potentially even more toxic herbicides such as dicamba and 2,4-D (an extremely toxic ingredient of Agent Orange). The resulting chemical treadmill only benefits the GM seed companies, which profit from each failure of their technologies because the failure creates a new opportunity for them to sell more chemicals in increasingly complex mixtures. Claims for the environmental friendliness of the no-till farming system as practised with GM herbicide-tolerant crops are also unjustified. Glyphosate over-use is also causing other problems for farmers, such as reducing crop vigour by making soil nutrients unavailable to crops and causing or exacerbating plant diseases that impact yield. Manufacturer claims that glyphosate/Roundup is an environmentally benign herbicide with low toxicity have proved to be false, with a growing number of studies showing that it persists in the environment and has toxic effects, in addition to studies showing that it is toxic to humans and causes birth defects and cancer. Claims of reductions in insecticide use through Bt crops are suspect when it is considered that the entire GM plant is an insecticide. Also, Bt crop technology is being undermined by the GMO Myths and Truths 94
emergence of resistant and secondary pests, which force farmers to go back to spraying complex and expensive chemical cocktails. And the increased use of insecticidal seed treatments on GM and non-GM seed alike raises the possibility that insecticide use has not been reduced through Bt crops but that it is simply less visible to farmers and consumers. Statements that the Bt toxin in Bt crops only affects insect pests have been shown to be false by studies showing negative effects on a wide range of organisms, including beneficial insects that help protect crops and beneficial soil organisms that enhance crop growth and health. Economic impacts of GM crops on farmers appear to be variable. Reports have emerged of escalating prices for GM seeds and the chemicals they are engineered to depend on. This pattern is enabled by the consolidation of the seed market under the control of the GM and agrochemical industry and the absence of real competition. References to Section 5 1. National Farmers Union of Canada. GM crops: Not needed on the Island. Recommendations of the National Farmers Union to the Prince Edward Island legislature’s standing committee on agriculture, forestry, and the environment. Charlottetown, PEI, Canada. 14 September 2005. 2. Gurian-Sherman D. Failure to yield: Evaluating the performance of genetically engineered crops. Union of Concerned Scientists. 2009. http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/food_and_ agriculture/failure-to-yield.pdf 3. Benbrook C. Evidence of the magnitude and consequences of the Roundup Ready soybean yield drag from university-based varietal trials in 1998. Sandpoint, Idaho. July 13 1999. http://www. mindfully.org/GE/RRS-Yield-Drag.htm 4. Elmore RW, Roeth FW, Nelson LA, et al. Glyphosate-resistant soyabean cultivar yields compared with sister lines. Agronomy Journal. 2001; 93: 408-412. 5. Ma BL, Subedi KD. Development, yield, grain moisture and nitrogen uptake of Bt corn hybrids and their conventional nearisolines. Field Crops Research. 2005; 93: 199-211. 6. Fernandez-Cornejo J, McBride WD. The adoption of bioengineered crops. Agricultural Economic Report No. 810. Washington, DC. US Department of Agriculture. 2002. http://www. ers.usda.gov/publications/aer810/aer810.pdf 7. Kaskey J. Monsanto facing “distrust” as it seeks to stop DuPont (update 3). Bloomberg. November 10 2009. http://www.bloomberg. com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aii_24MDZ8SU 8. Gillam C. Virginia probing Monsanto soybean seed pricing. West Virginia investigating Monsanto for consumer fraud. Reuters. June 25 2010. http://www.reuters.com/article/ idUSN2515475920100625 9. Benbrook CM. Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the United States: The first thirteen years. The Organic Center. November 2009. http://www.organic-center.org/ reportfiles/13Years20091126_FullReport.pdf 10. Christison B. Family farmers warn of dangers of genetically engineered crops. In Motion Magazine. 29 July 1998. http://www. At odds with claims that GM crops increase farmer choice, in reality their introduction marks the disappearance of farmer choice due to two mechanisms. First, as the GM industry gains control over the seed market in a region, desirable non-GM seed varieties are pulled from the market. Second, the biotech industry lobbies for “freedom of choice” for farmers, claiming that GM and non- GM crops (including organic) can “co-exist”. This opens the door for GM crops, causing farmers who wish to grow non-GM or organic crops to lose their freedom of choice due to GM contamination. Time and again, this has resulted in lost markets and increased costs to farmers and the food and feed industry. GM traits can spread to other crops, wild plants, and other unrelated species by horizontal gene transfer (HGT) through several mechanisms, some of which are more likely than others. The potential consequences of HGT have not been adequately considered by regulators. inmotionmagazine.com/genet1.html 11. Benbrook CM. Rust, resistance, run down soils, and rising costs – Problems facing soybean producers in Argentina. Technical Paper No 8. AgBioTech InfoNet. January 2005. http://www.greenpeace. org/raw/content/international/press/reports/rust-resistence-rundown-soi.pdf 12. Pengue W. El glifosato y la dominación del ambiente. Biodiversidad July 2003; 37. 13. MECON (Ministerio de Economia Argentina). Mercado argentino de fitosanitarios – Año 2001. 2001. http://web. archive.org/web/20070419071421/http://www.sagpya.mecon. gov.ar/new/0-0/nuevositio/agricultura/insumos_maquinarias/ fitosanitarios/index.php 14. CASAFE. Statistics. 2008. http://www.casafe.org/predan1/ resumen.pdf 15. Nandula VK, Reddy KN, Duke SO, Poston DH. Glyphosateresistant weeds: Current status and future outlook. Outlooks on Pest Management. August 2005; 16: 183–187. 16. Syngenta. Syngenta module helps manage glyphosate-resistant weeds. Delta Farm Press. May 30 2008. http://deltafarmpress.com/ syngenta-module-helps-manage-glyphosate-resistant-weeds 17. Robinson R. Resistant ryegrass populations rise in Mississippi. Delta Farm Press 2008. http://deltafarmpress.com/resistantryegrass-populations-rise-mississippi 18. Johnson B, Davis V. Glyphosate resistant horseweed (marestail) found in 9 more Indiana counties. Pest & Crop2005;May 13(8). http:// extension.entm.purdue.edu/pestcrop/2005/issue8/index.html 19. Herbicide Resistance Action Committee. Glycines (G/9) resistant weeds by species and country. 2012. http://www. weedscience.org/Summary/UspeciesMOA.asp?lstMOAID=12 20. Nice G, Johnson B, Bauman T. A little burndown madness. Pest & Crop. 7 March 2008. http://extension.entm.purdue.edu/ pestcrop/2008/issue1/index.html 21. Nice G, Johnson B. Fall applied programs labeled in Indiana. Pest & Crop. 22 September 2006. http://extension.entm.purdue. edu/pestcrop/2006/issue23/table1.html GMO Myths and Truths 95
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: een found to be unreliable and inco
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?