Saying no to GMO: French activists demonstrated outside the National Assembly in Paris on May 13. They opposed a bill that sets rules for allowing genetically modified crops to be grown in France. The bill, which passed, also sets a two-year jail term for ripping up GM crops. (Charles Platiau/Reuters)
Food crisis softens resistance to genetically modified (GM) food
At Rome summit, UN calls for $20 billion a year to feed hungry and fund a new ‘green revolution.’
By Robert Marquand| Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor/ June 6, 2008 edition
Paris
Opposition to genetically modified (GM) foods, still strongest in Europe, is starting to erode in the face of the global food crisis.
But the pressure for change, so far, is more economic than political.
Indeed, it was the political fighting over biofuels, farm subsidies, and trade policies, that threatened to undermine the efforts of 40 world leaders seeking a solution to soaring food costs at a UN summit in Rome that ended Thursday.
The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) asked governments to provide at least $20 billion a year to revive world agriculture research, to help feed nearly 1 billion hungry people, and to spark a new “green revolution.” But what advocates describe as a promising solution to hunger – GM foods – did not get much play in
Rome, save its promotion by US Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer.
Partly this is because genetically modified crops are not regarded as an immediate answer to farming problems in poor regions; partly it is because genetic alteration remains controversial. Europe bans most of the use and growth of crops whose seeds have been modified with genes of other organisms to make them more resilient.
Yet the economics of the food crisis may already be forcing changes in Europe, and in smaller farm nations, experts say. For the first time, Japan and Korea are allowing snack and drink manufacturers to quietly start using GM corn, after prices for non-GM corn doubled last year.
In Europe, growing numbers of farmers and corporations (such as BASF in Germany, which has a genetic potato ready to introduce) are pushing the European Union – including threats of legal action – to ease restrictions on using GM produce.
Legislators in France, Europe’s No. 1 farming nation, nearly came to blows May 22, when a bill to allow GM crops passed by a single vote; yet France will now only allow GM crops once the EU accepts them, a position that has vacillated for years, despite a green light by the EU food safety agency.
Genetically modified foods are commonplace in the US, China, Brazil, and Argentina – in processed foods, oils, and corn syrup. In US farming states, such as Minnesota last year, harvests of GM soybeans and GM corn made up 92 and 86 percent of those crops, according to the US Department of Agriculture.
By comparison, last year GM crops covered less than 1 percent of the farmland in France.
But views of genetic modification vary across Europe. Eurobarometer, a European Commission periodical, said in March that 58 percent of Europeans are opposed to the use of GM crops. But opinion in The Netherlands and Britain is less strident. Some Spanish farms are using engineered seeds. European farmers themselves (like those in Australia recently) are starting to say that tangible profits resulting from GM crops are changing their minds. A recent poll shows Italian farmers are willing to try them. Nor is the US uniformly on board. Wide swaths of land in Maine, Vermont, Oregon, and California are designated as GM-crop-free areas.
US officials and farmers alike express irritation over cases of food aid rejected in hungry African states – by local authorities worried about the contamination of crops by GM grains, making them unfit for sale in lucrative non-GM -food European markets.
South Africa is the only African nation that has approved planting a GM crop, though Burkina Faso may be close to approving a cotton strain, following its widespread use in India, and Egypt is looking at GM maize, according to the Financial Times.
At the summit in Rome, the FAO took no position on genetic modification or GMOs (genetically modified organisms). The organization takes a neutral position allowing choice by each nation. “Traditional farming techniques can close the yield gap between developing and developed nation farming, which is sometimes double,” says FAO spokesman Ali Gurkan. “But new research into GM seeds that have no harmful impact on the environment and strengthen plants in drought areas – this could greatly help.”
The GM dispute, complicated enough at a technical level, goes far deeper than food. It reveals profound clashes over science and culture, and over fundamental views about how to live in and organize the modern world, experts say.
“There’s a deep divide over the role of technology in agriculture, and GMOs are the key,” says an FAO official who was not officially cleared to speak. But he said that when GM and non-GM crops are studied side by side, the GM crops have consistently cost less to produce and brought greater “effective” yields, “which is how much you get after the bugs have stopped chewing on them,” he says.
For advocates, GM crops mean fewer harmful pesticides sprayed on crops, less fertilizer, greater harvest yields, and no ill- health effects. Biotech promises a future of drought resistant crops and cheaper, less vulnerable harvests.
For skeptics, mixing the genes of unlike species is a usurping of nature, the creation of Frankensteins in the food chain, and a concession to giant agribusiness. Genetic manipulation has unknown and untested effects on people and other living things, they argue, and can harm everything from soil and friendly insects to other crops. It also smacks of the blind faith in technology that brought global warming, poisonous rivers, and choking pollution. A UN report in 2005 found that “assessment mechanisms were faulty” in the testing of GMOs.
“GM foods have not lived up to the promises we heard about 10 years ago,” says Helen Holder of Friends of the Earth in Brussels. “They have not alleviated poverty and hunger, and their environmental and health impacts are not understood. In Europe, we will pay more for safe food, and we reject GM.”
In the US, China, and Brazil, there are now roughly two generations of genetically modified crops. The first generation, marketed for a decade, includes most of what is actually grown on mass scale. This includes corn, soy, rapeseed (for canola oil), and cotton. First-generation GM crops consist mostly of plants modified to produce internal toxins that deter the pests that threaten crops, experts say.
The second generation of crops – mostly developed since 2000, in a climate of rising consumer safety fears – are more sophisticated. They involve modifications designed to increase nutrition, the protein, or vitamin content of crops. But few second-generation products have made it out of the lab.
While few scientists will absolutely guarantee the safety of genetic foods, they point out almost no side effects to human health. It is the effects on other plant species – that may be dominated and replaced in the natural world by GM crops – that concern some ecologists.
Most experts contacted favor a balanced, cautious approach. The British journalist and expert Martin Wolf, commenting in a recent Financial Times forum, commented that, “Obviously I am not in favour of ‘careless embrace of GM technology.’ Who could be?
“But I am in favour of careful use of this technology, rather than careless rejection. Equally, I am not claiming that the only choice is between adoption of genetically modified crops and mass starvation…we should use whatever we have.”
GMO and cross-breeding
Conventional plant breeding alters the genes of a plant or animal by selectively mating an organism with desirable characteristics using a species’ natural reproductive processes. Farmers have used this technique for centuries.
Genetic engineering alters a plant’s genes using techniques that directly insert new genetic material, which may come from another species, into a plant cell to create new or modified traits. Scientists first discovered the technique in 1973 and genetically modified food crops first became commercially available to farmers in the mid-1990s.
Source: Wire reports, Consumers Union.
– Compiled by Christine Chronopoulos
( More stories )
Comments
2. Emma | 06.06.08
I can’t believe the soft approach in this report. Try watching the World According To Monsanto, made by a French documentarist. In it, she exposes the criminal behaviour of the Monsanto corporation, as well as the mis-use of scientific studies showing we certainly don’t know enough about the long term consequences of such GM crops as spoken about in this article. As the poster above mentions, Indian farmers began killing themselves over the failure of the Bt cotton Monsanto forced (with political arm bending tactics) on them, which has decimated 1,000 of acres of land. It turns out the plant has toxins throughout its system and has thus far killed hundreds of thousands of goats and sheep who traditionally grazed on the cotton lands. The documentary takes you around the world and shows you how unscrupulous are Monsanto’s techniques, and how poisonous their products. Also recent research has blown the myth of increased yields from GM crops out of the water- it simply is not true.
3. Starlady Lizasuain | 06.07.08
On February 25, 2006, Norway marks the seed-vault opening. “The “doomsday” vault is designed to keep millions of seed samples safe from natural and unnatural disasters: global warming, asteroid strikes, plant diseases, nuclear warfare, and even earthquakes—in fact, the structure absorbed a magnitude 6.2 quake here last week without a crack.
Though Norway owns the global seed bank—the first of its kind—other countries can store seeds in it and remove them as needed. The genes in the seeds may someday be needed to adapt crops to endure climate change, droughts, blights, and other potential catastrophes.”
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/02/photogalleries/seedvault-pictures/.
Monsanto’s “terminator Seed” should be added to the list except this is a macabre plan, not a natural catastrophe. Shortly thereafter in 2006, Monsanto Buys ‘Terminator’ Seeds Company. “Relations between Monsanto, Delta & Pine Land and the USDA, on closer scrutiny, show the deep and dark side of the much-heralded genetic revolution in agriculture. It proves deep-held suspicions that the Gene Revolution is not about ‘solving the world hunger problem’ as its advocates claim. It’s about handing over control of the seeds for mankind’s basic food supply—rice, corn, soybeans, wheat, even fruit, vegetables and cotton—to privately owned corporations. Once the seeds and their use are patented and controlled by one or several private agribusiness multinationals, it will be they who can decide whether or not a particular customer—let’s say for argument, China or Brazil or India or Japan—whether they will or won’t get the patented seeds from Monsanto, or from one of its licensee GMO partners like Bayer Crop Sciences, Syngenta or DuPont’s Pioneer Hi-Bred International.
While most of us don’t bother to reflect on where the corn in the box of Kellogg’s Corn Flakes or the rice in a box of Uncle Ben’s Converted Rice come from, when we grab it from the supermarket shelf, they all must originate with seeds. Seeds can either be taken by a farmer from the previous season’ seeds, and planted to produce the next harvest. Or, seeds can be bought new each harvest season, from the companies which sell their seeds.
The advent of commercial GMO seeds in the early 1990’s allowed companies like Monsanto, DuPont or Dow Chemicals to go from supplying agriculture chemical herbicides like Roundup, to patenting genetically altered seeds for basic farm crops like corn, rice, soybeans or wheat. For almost a quarter century, since 1983, the US Government has quietly been working to perfect a genetically engineered technique whereby farmers would be forced to turn to their seed supplier each harvest to get new seeds. The seeds would only produce one harvest. After that the seeds from that harvest would commit ‘suicide’ and be unusable. There has been much hue and cry, correctly so, that this process, patented ‘suicide’ seeds, officially termed GURTs (Genetic Use Restriction Technologies), is a threat to poor farmers in developing countries like India or Brazil, who traditionally save their own seeds for the next planting. In fact, GURTs, more popularly referred to as Terminator seeds for the brutal manner in which they kill off plant reproduction possibilities, is a threat to the food security as well of North America, Western Europe, Japan and anywhere Monsanto and its elite cartel of GMO agribusiness partners enters a market.” Source: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=3082.
ALERT: Seed vault is in the path of vast cracks appearing in the Artic Ice. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7417123.stm. Even with the impregnable Seed Vault, already there is evidence that the vault will be submerged at the bottom of the North Pole as the Artic Ice cracks open. Then what? world extinction!
4. Jaime | 06.07.08
GM safe? I read about the unexplained demise of bees. I read about the unexplained demise of bats. Crazy? Maybe I am.
I hope Europe does not follow in US footsteps although I suspect that Brussels, at the insistance of the US, will shove it down our throats whether we like it or not on the basis of a WTO ruling or some other treaty that they signed on behalf of the European people.
5. sanjait | 06.07.08
If anyone has some explaining to do, its those who have used unfounded paranoia in an attempt to keep this valuable technology off the world marketplace. Where is the environmental/economic/human catastrophe you predicted? We’ve been using GMO crops for years now … where is the negative consequence?
If you don’t want to eat GMO crops, fine. We should label them so people have the choice. But we’ve seen vividly the human cost of high commodity prices. People in the third world are starving and dying. This is no time for fear and false assertion to stop us from taking advantage of a technology that increases cropland productivity.
And yes, GMO technology does increase productivity, contrary to claims. *Why else do you think American farmers overwhelmingly use them?* Do you think they buy it out of political pressure, or self-interest? Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts, and higher GMO productivity is a fact.
Similarly, GMO crops don’t require pesticides to grow. Some of them have a glyosphate-resistance gene (otherwise known as roundup ready). They don’t need it to grow, it just leaves them able to survive treatment with roundup herbicide, which kills weeds and leaves the crops to grow unencumbered by competitive plant species. This is a fact as well.
As for Indian farmer suicides, that’s a complex situation. Some did not understand the deals they made, which unlike normal crops that you can cull seeds from and replant the following year, the GMO crops required them to buy new licenses. To blame that for all the farmer suicides though is a blatant example of confirmation bias. Farmers in MP state were committing suicide because of bankruptcies mostly the result of drought in the region and low prevailing commodity prices at the time. Look at the state now though, and you’ll see many farmers happily enjoying the higher yield GMO crops in a time of higher commodity prices. For something that was supposedly devastating, those poor farmers are embracing it enthusiastically.
That really is the story. This technology will help the third world farmer increase productivity, and the third world consumer get something to eat, if the technophobes who see a corporate conspiracy around every corner will just get out of the way.
6. Concerned | 09.14.08
This is not unfounded paranoia as you have accused us of. We don’t want GM in our food and yet they refuse to label it which is a disgrace. Consumers should know more about the consequences of GM and the potential dangers according to the independent research and even the GM companies own data. Have you read that? Obviously not! Read it and you will see that they manipulate results. The researchers found for example a different colouring in the livers and kidneys but they said that was not significant. How could that not be significant??? Negative consequences! Have a look at the health deterioration in all countries that are eating GM. We do not know if GM is actually doing any damage to us because we do not know. There are no human testings of GM. Open your eyes and see the millions more allergic reactions in all countries eating GM and the amount of eczema, asthma, lung and stomach problems, just to name a few, that have cropped up in the last 10-15 years. This is how long GM has been around.
Fear and skeptism of this outdated product is correct. You obviously have not done your research and looked at GM with an open mind at the health issues related to this product. If you had a health problem you would not go into a hospital and say “oh by the way I have been eating GM food”. We don’t know if the skyrocketing increase in health problems within the last 2 decades are caused by GM because as it is not controlled. We are the uncontrolled experiment of this dangerous product and the guinea pigs of a massive corporate money grabbing experiment. The GM companies have said “There will be no seed in the world that we don’t own”. Farmers will be contract growers on their own land.
With the suicides, you have not done your research there either. Yes, they had drought but not enough to commit suicide because now they cannot afford the seed to sow their crops. The cost to farmers for Gm products have gone up 700-900% since their introduction. This is a disgrace. As soon as the GM crops contaminate the whole region, the GM companies increase the price because the farmers no longer have a choice.
And as for increase in productivity, what marketing pamphlet have you been looking at? Obviously the pro-GM sector. Decreases in yields have been reported. If you track back completely the supposed increases in yields for GM you find that it tracks back to a marketing manager of GM in India.
The pro-GM sector is playing with the creation of God without knowing the full extent of the implications of their experiment. A gene gun which is the basis of GM technology bombards a gene with a bt toxin, bacteria and virus into the genome of a plant with one in a million chance of working. One single gene in humans for example, that is damaged, missing or bent, causes diseases like schizaphrenia, cancer, sickle cell anemia, downs syndrome to name a few. When the GM plant is cloned and grown, the visual mutations are weeded out. What about the mutations in toxins? They are not seen, they are not weeded out. We are what we eat and what you do to our food, will be what we are.
All Christians should be very concerned about this product and should be voicing their concerns. Stand up and be heard about the dangers of this product as you have the power to change this.
7. Concerned | 09.14.08
You have not done your research on pesticide use either as you say that GM does not require pesticide. Excuse me! Read the words Roundup Ready. Roundup is pesticide. A recent report (USDA) showed that GM crops use 15 times more pesticide than non-GM crops. Your facts are unfounded and wrong.
8. Concerned | 09.14.08
GM crops (according to the USFDA) use 15 times more pesticide than non-GM crops. Your facts are incorrect and you have not done any research except for looking on a pro-GM site. I dare you to go to these regions that have taken up GM in India or wherever as long as its not someone that has vested interest in GM and see for yourself that this is not the way to go. Farmers and consumers are going to be worse off and it is an affront to God’s work.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate – even pointed disagreement – is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. william martin | 06.06.08
I take issue with the statement in this article - “GM crops mean fewer harmful pesticides sprayed on crops, less fertilizer, greater harvest yields, and no ill- health effects. Biotech promises a future of drought resistant crops and cheaper, less vulnerable harvests.”
This is the basic inaccuracy that the industry has used for years to deceive the population. GM crops use more pesticides, they were created to be used with pesticides and do not even grow without the pesticides being applied, which in turn pollutes our water and environment and our bodies. There is no clear evidence that the yields are higher than organic methods through time - the studies which have included 1 or 2 years of yields have not included some of the disasterous results. In india, on the 3rd season, tens of thousands of farmers lost entire crops of cotton due to gm. And this story is repeated around the world. These companies have co-opted the life giving forces of the earth and the self-sufficiency of entire cultures for the enrichment of a few individuals on the planet.
Get your own seeds and plant them - we will need them. Visit http://www.ediblegardens.com and grow your own 100% natural heirloom seeds to ensure biodivesity and healthy food for yourself and family for generations to come.