gmo genetic engineers explain why ge food is dangerous 24jun12

7/31/2019 GMO Genetic Engineers Explain Why GE Food is Dangerous 24jun12

1/8

Genetic Engineers Explain Why GE Food

Is Dangerous

By Eco Watch, 24 June 2012

One of the reports au thors, Dr. Michael An toniou of King s College

London School of Medicine in the UK, uses genetic engineer ing for

m edical applications but w arns against its use in developing crops for

hum an food and anim al feed.

Arent critics of genetically engineered food anti-science? Isnt the debate overGMOs (genetically modified organisms) a spat between emotional but ignorantactivists on one hand and rational GM-supporting scientists on the other?

A report released June 17, GMO Myths and Truths, challenges these claims.The report presents a large body of peer-reviewed scientific and otherauthoritative evidence of the hazards to health and the environment posed bygenetically engineered crops and organisms.

Unusually, the initiative for the report came not from campaigners but fromtwo genetic engineers, who believe there are good scientific reasons to be waryof GM foods and crops.

One of the reports authors, Dr. Michael Antoniou of Kings College LondonSchool of Medicine in the UK, uses genetic engineering for medical

1


2/8

applications but warns against its use in developing crops for human food andanimal feed.

GM crops are promoted on the basis of ambitious claimsthat they are safe toeat, environmentally beneficial, increase yields, reduce reliance on pesticides

and can help solve world hunger, said Dr. Antoniou. I felt what was neededwas a collation of the evidence that addresses the technology from a scientificpoint of view.

Research studies show that genetically modified crops have harmful effects onlaboratory animals in feeding trials and on the environment during cultivation,Antoniou said. They have increased the use of pesticides and have failed toincrease yields. Our report concludes that there are safer and more effectivealternatives to meeting the worlds food needs.

Another author of the report, Dr. John Fagan, is a former genetic engineer whoin 1994 returned to the National Institutes of Health $614,000 in grant moneydue to concerns about the safety and ethics of the technology. He subsequentlyfounded a GMO testing company.

Crop genetic engineering as practiced today is a crude, imprecise andoutmoded technology, said Dr. Fagan. It can create unexpected toxins orallergens in foods and affect their nutritional value. Recent advances point tobetter ways of using our knowledge of genomics to improve food crops that donot involve GM.

Over 75 percent of all GM crops are engineered to tolerate being sprayed withherbicide, Fagan said. This has led to the spread of herbicide-resistant superweeds and has resulted in massively increased exposure of farmers andcommunities to these toxic chemicals. Epidemiological studies suggest a linkbetween herbicide use and birth defects and cancer. These findingsfundamentally challenge the utility and safety of GM crops, but the biotechindustry uses its influence to block research by independent scientists and usesits powerful PR machine to discredit independent scientists whose findingschallenge this approach.

The third author of the report, Claire Robinson, research director of Earth OpenSource, said, The GM industry is trying to change our food supply in far-reaching and potentially dangerous ways. We all need to inform ourselvesabout what is going on and ensure that wenot biotechnology companieskeep control of our food system and crop seeds.

2


3/8

We hope our report will contribute to a broader understanding of GM cropsand the sustainable alternatives that are already working successfully forfarmers and communities, Robinson added.

Key Points from the Report:

1. Genetic engineering as used in crop development is not precise orpredictable and has not been shown to be safe. The technique can result in theunexpected production of toxins or allergens in food that are unlikely to bespotted in current regulatory checks.

2. GM crops, including some that are already in our food and animal feedsupply, have shown clear signs of toxicity in animal feeding trialsnotablydisturbances in liver and kidney function and immune responses.

3. GM proponents have dismissed these statistically significant findings as notbiologically relevant/significant, based on scientifically indefensiblearguments.

4. Certain EU-commissioned animal feeding trials with GM foods and cropsare often claimed by GM proponents to show they are safe. In fact, examinationof these studies shows significant differences between the GM-fed and controlanimals that give cause for concern.

5. GM foods have not been properly tested in humans, but the few studies that

have been carried out in humans give cause for concern.

6. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not require mandatorysafety testing of GM crops, and does not even assess the safety of GM cropsbut only deregulates them, based on assurances from biotech companies thatthey are substantially equivalent to their non-GM counterparts. This is likeclaiming that a cow with BSE is substantially equivalent to a cow that does nothave BSE and is thus safe to eat. Claims of substantial equivalence cannot bejustified on scientific grounds.

7. The regulatory regime for GM foods is weakest in the U.S., where GM foodsdo not even have to be assessed for safety or labeled in the marketplace, but inmost regions of the world regulations are inadequate to protect peoples healthfrom the potential adverse effects of GM foods.

8. In the EU, where the regulatory system is often claimed to be strict, minimalpre-market testing is required for a GMO and the tests are commissioned by the

3


4/8

same companies that stand to profit from the GMO if it is approveda clearconflict of interest.

9. No long-term toxicological testing of GMOs on animals or testing onhumans is required by any regulatory agency in the world.

10. Biotech companies have used patent claims and intellectual propertyprotection laws to restrict access of independent researchers to GM crops forresearch purposes. As a result, limited research has been conducted on GMfoods and crops by scientists who are independent of the GM industry.Scientists whose work has raised concerns about the safety of GMOs have beenattacked and discredited in orchestrated campaigns by GM crop promoters.

11. Most GM crops (more than 75 percent) are engineered to tolerateapplications of herbicides. Where such GM crops have been adopted, they have

led to massive increases in herbicide use.

12. Roundup, the herbicide that more than 50 percent of all GM crops areengineered to tolerate, is not safe or benign as has been claimed but has beenfound to cause malformations (birth defects), reproductive problems, DNAdamage and cancer in test animals. Human epidemiological studies have foundan association between Roundup exposure and miscarriage, birth defects,neurological development problems, DNA damage and certain types of cancer.

13. A public health crisis has erupted in GM soy-producing regions of South

America, where people exposed to spraying with Roundup and otheragrochemicals sprayed on the crop report escalating rates of birth defects andcancer.

14. A large number of studies indicate that Roundup is associated withincreased crop diseases, especially infection with Fusarium, a fungus thatcauses wilt disease in soy and can have toxic effects on humans and livestock.

15. Bt insecticidal GM crops do not sustainably reduce pesticide use but changethe way in which pesticides are used: from sprayed on, to built in.

16. Bt technology is proving unsustainable as pests evolve resistance to thetoxin and secondary pest infestations are becoming common.

17. GM proponents claim that the Bt toxin engineered into GM plants is safebecause the natural form of Bt, long used as a spray by conventional andorganic farmers, has a history of safe use. But the GM forms of Bt toxins are

4


5/8

different from the natural forms and could have different toxic and allergeniceffects.

18. GM Bt toxin is not limited in its toxicity to insect pests. GM Bt crops havebeen found to have toxic effects on laboratory animals in feeding trials.

19. GM Bt crops have been found to have toxic effects on non-target organismsin the environment.

20. Bt toxin is not fully broken down in digestion and has been foundcirculating in the blood of pregnant women in Canada and in the blood supplyto their fetuses.

21. The no-till method of farming promoted with GM herbicide-tolerant crops,which avoids ploughing and uses herbicides to control weeds, is not more

climate-friendly than ploughing. No-till fields do not store more carbon in thesoil than ploughed fields when deeper levels of soil are measured.

22. No-till increases the negative environmental impacts of soy cultivation,because of the herbicides used.

23. Golden Rice, a beta-carotene-enriched rice, is promoted as a GM crop thatcould help malnourished people overcome vitamin A deficiency. But GoldenRice has not been tested for toxicological safety, has been plagued by basicdevelopment problems, and, after more than 12 years and millions of dollars of

research funding, is still not ready for the market. Meanwhile, inexpensive andeffective solutions to vitamin A deficiency are available but under-used due tolack of funding.

24. GM crops are often promoted as a vital tool in the toolbox to feed theworlds growing population, but many experts question the contribution theycould make, as they do not offer higher yields or cope better with drought thannon-GM crops. Most GM crops are engineered to tolerate herbicides or tocontain a pesticidetraits that are irrelevant to feeding the hungry.

25. High adoption of GM crops among farmers is not a sign that the GM crop issuperior to non-GM varieties, as once GM companies gain control of the seedmarket, they withdraw non-GM seed varieties from the market. The notion offarmer choice does not apply in this situation.

5


6/8

26. GM contamination of non-GM and organic crops has resulted in massivefinancial losses by the food and feed industry, involving product recalls,lawsuits, and lost markets.

27. When many people read about high yielding, pest- and disease-resistant,

drought-tolerant, and nutritionally improved super-crops, they think of GM. Infact, these are all products of conventional breeding, which continues tooutstrip GM in producing such crops. The report contains a long list of theseconventional crop breeding successes.

28. Certain supercrops have been claimed to be GM successes when in factthey are products of conventional breeding, in some cases assisted by the non-GM biotechnology of marker assisted selection.

29. Conventional plant breeding, with the help of non-GM biotechnologies

such as marker assisted selection, is a safer and more powerful method thanGM to produce new crop varieties required to meet current and future needs offood production, especially in the face of rapid climate change.

30. Conventionally bred, locally adapted crops, used in combination with agroecological farming practices, offer a proven, sustainable approach to ensuringglobal food security.

This article was published at Nation of Changeat: http://www.nationofchange.org/genetic-engineers-explain-why-ge-food-

dangerous-1340544600. All rights are reserved.

6
http://www.nationofchange.org/genetic-engineers-explain-why-ge-food-dangerous-1340544600http://www.nationofchange.org/genetic-engineers-explain-why-ge-food-dangerous-1340544600http://www.nationofchange.org/genetic-engineers-explain-why-ge-food-dangerous-1340544600http://www.nationofchange.org/genetic-engineers-explain-why-ge-food-dangerous-1340544600


7/8

http://www.anbariloche.com.ar/noticia.php?nota=29479

San Carlos de Bariloche

24 de junio de 2012 |Monsanto: las semillas del golpeLa transnacional de la agroindustria fue uno de los poderosos y discretosprotagonistas de la destitucin del ex obispo y presidente paraguayo, Fernando Lugo.

El gobierno de Fernando Lugo ya haba sufrido la amenaza del juicio poltico en 23ocasiones anteriores y por los ms diversos motivos. En su mayora, estas operaciones dedesgaste contra el ex obispo y presidente, fueron propiciadas por su vicepresidenteFederico Franco, una suerte de Cleto Cobos guaran que se distanci polticamente de Lugopoco despus de iniciado el mandato presidencial, el 28 de abril de 2008. Sabiendo quecontaba con los votos del Partido Radical Liberal Autntico (Prla), ms los del PartidoColorado fundado por el dictador Alfredo Stroessner, en reiteradas oportunidades elvicepresidente Franco fue hasta la sede del gobierno para intentar extorsionar a Lugo con laamenaza del juicio poltico, Franco nunca ocult que quera ser presidente, si no lo lograntes es porque los colorados no quisieron prestarse a la maniobra, porque tenan su propiaestrategia de desgaste.

En esta oportunidad, la convergencia de tres actores en las sombras la siniestratrasnacional sojera Monsanto, la oligarqua latifundista paraguaya y la jerarqua de la Iglesiacatlica, hicieron que el Partido Colorado modificara su estrategia, habilitando el juicio

poltico a menos de diez meses de prevista la eleccin presidencial en la que su candidato,el terrateniente y empresario sojero Horacio Cartes, aparece posicionado como segurotriunfador. No se puede descartar que los colorados, que representan los intereses de losgrandes latifundistas paraguayos optaran por un golpe de mano preventivo ante la presuntaamenaza de los campesinos sin tierra, que vieron frustradas sus aspiraciones de unareforma agraria que Lugo prometi y nunca cumpli. Tal vez teman que los desposedosavanzaran en la ocupacin de territorios antes de la salida de la presidencia del ex obispo,pero lo concreto es que se avizora detrs del golpe institucional es un plan para criminalizar,llevar hasta el odio extremo, a todas las organizaciones campesinas, para empujar a loscampesinos a abandonar el campo para el uso exclusivo del agronegocio.

En esa hiptesis, el enfrentamiento en Curuguaty (en la hacienda de Blas Riquelme, unterrateniente ligado al Partido Colorado) bien podra haber sido provocado para desatar el

proceso de juicio poltico que culmin este viernes con la destitucin del presidente.

Slo un sabotaje interno dentro de los cuadros de inteligencia de la Polica, con lacomplicidad de la Fiscala, explica la emboscada, en la cual murieron seis policas. No secomprende cmo policas altamente entrenados, en el marco del Plan Colombia, pudieroncaer fcilmente en una supuesta trampa tendida por campesinos, como hizo creer la prensaaliada al golpe express. Los uniformados reaccionaron y acribillaron a los campesinos,matando a 11, quedando unos 50 heridos. Entre los policas muertos estaba el jefe delGEO, comisario Erven Lovera, hermano del teniente coronel Alcides Lovera, jefe deseguridad del presidente Lugo. En ese contexto, el asesinato del hermano del jefe de

1
http://www.anbariloche.com.ar/noticia.php?nota=29479http://www.anbariloche.com.ar/noticia.php?nota=29479http://www.anbariloche.com.ar/noticia.php?nota=29479http://www.anbariloche.com.ar/noticia.php?nota=29479


8/8

seguridad del presidente de la Repblica obviamente fue un mensaje directo a FernandoLugo, cuya cabeza sera el prximo objetivo. Ms an, tanto la Fiscala que investig lamasacre, como el Poder Judicial y la Polica Nacional, estn controlados medianteconvenios de cooperacin por Usaid, la agencia de cooperacin de los Estados Unidos.

Pese a las mltiples advertencias de numerosos aliados dentro y fuera de Paraguay, Lugono se aboc a la tarea de consolidar la heterognea fuerza social que en 2008 lo elev a la

presidencia. Su gravitacin en el Congreso era absolutamente mnima, uno o dossenadores, mientras sobreestimaba la capacidad de movilizacin para garantizar lagobernabilidad a su gestin.

A lo largo de su mandato se sucedieron mltiples concesiones a la derecha como las leyesantiterroristas que promulg a pedido de la embajada de Estados Unidos, sancionadas porun congreso que es uno de los ms corruptos del Continente y que termin destituyndoloen un farsesco simulacro de juicio poltico que viol todas las normas del debido proceso.

Segn el periodista y autor del libro Los Herederos de Stroessner, Idilio Mndez Grimaldi, latrasnacional Monsanto ha cumplido un papel central en el golpe contra Lugo.

El 21 de octubre de 2011, el Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadera, dirigido por el liberalEnzo Cardozo, dio el visto bueno provisorio a la semilla de algodn transgnico Bollgard BT

de Monsanto, para su siembra comercial en Paraguay. Las protestas campesinas y deorganizaciones ambientalistas no se dejaron esperar. El gen de este algodn est mezcladocon el gen del Bacillus Thurigensis, una bacteria txica que mata a algunas plagas delalgodn, como las larvas del picudo, un coleptero que deposita sus huevos en el capullodel textil.

El Servicio Nacional de Calidad y Sanidad Vegetal y de Semillas, Senave, otra institucin delEstado paraguayo, dirigido por Miguel Lovera, se neg a inscribir dicha semilla transgnicaen los registros de cultivables, por carecer de los dictmenes del Ministerio de Salud y de laSecretara de Ambiente.

Durante los meses posteriores, Monsanto, a travs de la Unin de Gremios de Produccin,UGP, estrechamente ligada al Grupo Zuccolillo, que publica el diario ABC Color, lanz unaferoz ofensiva contra el Senave y su presidente por no inscribir la semilla transgnica para

su uso comercial en todo el pas.

La cuenta regresiva decisiva pareci haberse dado con una nueva denuncia por parte deuna seudosindicalista del Senave, de nombre Silvia Martnez, quien acus el 7 de juniopasado a Lovera de corrupcin y nepotismo en la institucin que dirige, a travs de ABCColor. Martnez es esposa de Roberto Cceres, representante tcnico de varias empresasagrcolas, entre ellas Agrosn, recientemente adquirida por 120 millones de dlares porSyngenta, otra transnacional, todas socias de la UGP. El viernes 15 de junio, coincidiendocon una exposicin anual organizada por el Ministerio de Agricultura, la transnacionalMonsanto present otra variedad de algodn, doblemente transgnico: BT y RR oResistente al Roundup, un herbicida fabricado y patentado por Monsanto. La pretensin dela transnacional norteamericana era la inscripcin en Paraguay de esta semilla transgnica,tal como ya ocurri en la Argentina y otros pases del mundo. Sin embargo, la ministra de

Salud de Lugo se opona.Paraguay es uno de los pases ms desiguales del mundo. All reina la UGP, apoyada porlas transnacionales del sector financiero y del agronegocio que nunca ocultaron que iban aconseguir la aprobacin de las semillas de Monsanto a como diera lugar.

2

gmo genetic engineers explain why ge food is dangerous 24jun12

Documents