Discovery Health
Food And Health Awareness
Poor Performance Of GE Crops
POOR PERFORMANCE OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED CROPS:
Imposing New Risks on Consumers and the Environment While Failing to Improve the
Farmers' Bottom Line
Steven M. Druker
Executive Director
Alliance for Bio-Integrity
www.biointegrity.org
Although proponents of agricultural biotechnology repeatedly claim that genetically engineered (GE) crops are dramatically increasing yields, enlarging farmers' profits, and reducing environmental hazards - while creating no higher risks to the health of the consumer, the facts tell a very different story. In reality, yields are often reduced, farmers are not enjoying higher profits, environmental hazards are intensifying, and numerous scientists, including the FDA's own experts, have warned about increased risks to the safety of the food supply. These problems are detailed in the following paragraphs.
GE Crops Are Not Performing As Promised and Farmers Are Not Getting Greater Profits From Them
As reported by the Des Moines Register, studies of
Dr. Duffy also found that, in both years, yields for the GE soybean (Monsanto's Roundup Ready variety) were lower than for the non-GE beans. http://www.leopold.iastate.edu/pubinfo/papersspeeches/biotech.html This bean is the most widely planted GE crop in the world, and Duffy discovered that, despite the fact it actually reduces yields, over half the farmers he studied who had bought it did so because they believed it would increase their yields. http://www.leopold.iastate.edu/news/9-22-99gmorel.html
The reduced yields of GE soybeans have been confirmed by several other studies. For example, researchers at the
As for GE corn, research conducted on a national scale indicates an over-all reduction of profits. A study by Dr. Charles Benbrook, former Executive Director of the National Academy of Science Board of Agriculture, found that from 1996 through 2001 farmers who planted genetically engineered Bt corn have on the whole lost about $92 million, or an average of about $1.31 per acre.
Report available at: http://www.gefoodalert.org/library/admin/uploadedfiles/When_Does_It_Pay_To_Plant_Bt_Corn.pdf Bt corn, which is engineered to produce pesticide in its cells, is the most widely planted type of GE corn.
Even if GE crops were actually delivering their advertised benefits, they still would not be needed to alleviate hunger in the
In General, GE Crops Are Not Reducing Environmental Hazards But Increasing Them
Extensive evidence shows that farmers who plant crops that are genetically engineered to resist the herbicide Roundup are now applying more of it to their fields. (Dr. Charles Benbrook, Pesticide Outlook, October 2001, Pages 204-207.) Further, recent research conducted by the
Experts have been surprised by the results because research provided by Monsanto, the manufacturer of Roundup, had led them to believe that bacteria broke down glyphosate before it reached the groundwater. According to Professor Mogens Henze, head of the Institute for Environment and Resources at
The extent of glyphosate pollution in the
There are already instances of weeds such as mare's-tail and water hemp becoming resistant to Roundup because of its substantially increased use. The editors of the New York Times noted that such resistance is a natural outcome of Roundup having become so "pervasive" through the planting of genetically engineered crops designed to tolerate it; and they stated that besides those weeds currently showing resistance, "others will certainly follow."
They also warned that through the wide use of crops engineered to produce the Bt toxin, pests are likely to become resistant to it as well. They then stated: "Bt is a safe, natural and effective weapon for gardeners and farmers, and to lessen its effectiveness by overusing it, like Roundup, would be a terrible waste. Industrial agriculture is always searching for a silver bullet, forgetting that eventually a silver bullet misfires." ("Roundup Unready," New York Times,
Resistance to the Bt toxin has been observed among some species of pests. Moreover, recent research conducted at
Besides contributing to the development of herbicide-resistant pests by inducing over-use of herbicide, GE herbicide-resistant crops can transfer the gene that confers this resistance to wild, weedy relatives through cross-pollination, thereby creating "superweeds" that are immune to the active ingredient. This threat is well recognized, as evidenced by a March 2002 report by the European Environment Agency, which, in the words of the British newspaper, The Independent, "confirms environmentalists' worst fears." The newspaper summarized the report's conclusion as follows: "Genes will inevitably escape from genetically modified crops, contaminating organic farms, creating superweeds, and driving wild plants to extinction." [emphasis added] The paper also noted the report's caution that " 'gene flow can occur over long distances', and that some varieties of GM crops interbreed with others 'at higher frequencies and at greater distances than previously thought.'" ("GM crops bound to 'escape', says EU," The Independent,
Hundreds of Scientists, Including the FDA's Own Experts, Have Warned That Genetically Engineered Foods Pose Higher Human Health Risks Than Do Other Foods
Professors of molecular biology at leading universities such as Harvard, M.I.T., and the University of California, Berkeley have issued cautions about the abnormal health risks of GE foods.
Professor Philip Regal, a renowned expert at the University of Minnesota, has written: "…there are scientifically justified concerns about the safety of genetically engineered foods, and some of them could be quite dangerous." Declaration, 5/28/99 www.biointegrity.org
The editors of the respected UK medical journal The Lancet have strongly criticized the presumption that GE foods entail no greater risks of unexpected effects. They stated there are "good reasons to believe that specific risks may exist" and that "governments should never have allowed these products into the food chain without insisting on rigorous testing for effects on health." Vol. 353, No. 9167, p. 1811 (May 29, 1999).
The Public Health Association of Australia analyzed Monsanto's data from controlled studies on three of its GE plants (herbicide resistant corn and canola, and pesticide-producing corn) and in all three cases found several statistically significant differences in amino acid composition between the GE organism and its non-GE counterpart. Their report (October 2000) states that the differences cannot be attributed solely to the known products of the inserted genes and cautions that these plants may contain unexpected - and to date unidentified - new proteins that could be harmful to humans.Recent investigation by scientists at Japan's Nagoya University reveals that Monsanto's data on the "Roundup Ready" soybean actually shows important differences between it and its conventional counterpart. For instance, after heat processing of both the GE and non-GE beans, the concentrations of three harmful substances were significantly higher in the GE samples.(Technology and Human Beings, Nov.2000, p24-33)
The January 2001 report of the expert panel of the Royal Society of Canada states that (a) it is "scientifically unjustifiable" to presume that GE foods are safe and (b) the "default presumption" for every GE food should be that the genetic alteration has induced unintended and potentially hazardous side effects. In describing the report's criticism of the current approach to regulating GE foods, the Toronto Star stated: "The experts say this approach is fatally flawed … and exposes Canadians to several potential health risks, including toxicity and allergic reactions."
The scientists at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) also recognized the unique hazards of GE foods and repeatedly warned about them. This was exposed when a lawsuit headed by our organization forced the FDA to divulge its files.
The FDA's scientists concluded that genetic engineering is inherently hazardous and can produce unintended new toxins that are unpredictable and difficult to detect. They cautioned that no GE food could be considered safe unless it has passed rigorous toxicological tests. (Photocopies of 24 key FDA memos are at www.biointegrity.org )
An FDA official summarized the experts' opinions by stating: "The processes of genetic engineering and traditional breeding are different, and according to the technical experts in the agency, they lead to different risks." (Document #1 in the set of photocopies of FDA