Further issues to consider in deciding whether to introduce GE crops and food

This is a follow-up article. The first article looks at the questions of genetic engineering (GE) and human health, GE and the impact on the environment, and GE and socio-economic factors, particularly increasing corporate control of the food value chain. There are, in addition, a number of other issues that should be considered in deciding whether to go down the GE route in Zimbabwe. The following document outlines some of these:

SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS?

The assertion is made that there is scientific consensus on the safety of genetically engineered crops and foods. This is just not true. For example, the Union of Concerned Scientists in the USA recently said this: ‘Genetically engineered crops have the potential to cause a variety of health problems and environmental impacts.’ They go on to make a number of the points made in my first article, highlighting in particular ‘an epidemic of herbicide-resistant super weeds which will lead to even more herbicide use’.

Very recently, 90 scientists, all of whom are members of the European Network of Scientists for Environmental Responsibility signed a joint statement stating categorically that ‘the claimed consensus on the safety of genetically modified crops does not exist’. They go on to state that it is misleading and irresponsible for anyone to claim that there is consensus.

Interestingly, it has also emerged from documents made public because of a law suit, that back in 1992 there was no consensus amongst scientists in the Food and Drug Authority (FDA). As Jeffry Smith stated at the recent GMO mini-Summit (November 2013): ‘There had been a manufactured consensus, a false story that had circulated as part of the official documents of the FDA, claiming that the agency wasn't aware of any information showing that GMOs were significantly different. The overwhelming consensus among the scientists actually working at the FDA was the opposite, that GMOs were different from traditional breeding and were dangerous and could lead to allergies and toxins.’

THE STRENGTH AND HYPE OF PRO-GE PR

The case of Golden Rice has been in the news recently. GE proponents have stated that this is truly a philanthropic effort and the Environment minister in the UK even went as far as calling those against this initiative 'wicked', and accused them of ‘casting a dark shadow over attempts to feed the world’; the implication being that those against it are holding up the release of Golden Rice. As usual it is more complex than this. Much of the hype about Golden Rice is theory and there are other ways to increase Vitamin A uptake. The Philippines achieved this very successfully between 2003 and 2008, cutting Vitamin deficiency from 40% in children under 5 in 2003 to 15.2% by 2008. Furthermore, the truth about the delay in the release of Golden Rice is that scientists initially engineered golden rice into a Japonica variety of rice, the sticky kind that the Japanese eat. South East Asians don't like this kind. They eat the Indica varieties, such as basmati and jasmine rices. Researchers have been desperately trying to transfer the 'golden rice' trait into Indica varieties and that is what has held things up. This is an example of the strength of pro-GE PR.

There are those who suggest that the golden rice project is a Trojan horse for corporations to gain entry into a number of less industrialised country markets with GE crops.

‘GE CROPS WILL FEED THE WORLD’

The idea has been put out that genetically engineered crops and food will solve the huge problem of providing enough food for the world and in particular the poor. The implication is that those who are against it are somehow sealing the fate of the hungry and poor. There are two points that dispute this point. The first is that the issue of hunger in the world today does not relate to the amount of food available. It is an issue of poverty, lack of access to land and maldistribution of food. There is more than enough food to feed the world.

The second point is that GE crops have not increased yield. That is not what they have been engineered for. Jack Heinemann, a Professor of Genetics and Molecular Biology, states in the book 'Hope not Hype': ‘There is no conclusive data from either developed or developing country agroecosystems to support generic claims that GM crops increase yield or revenue. It is undoubtedly true that any cultivar, transgenic or not, will produce more or less depending on year, location and other variables. GM crops are not being asked to achieve a higher standard than conventional crops on this point. However, any general claim that GM crops will reliably produce more than conventional crops in the same environments is not scientifically substantiated.’ (Hope not Hype, 2009).

In analysis of US government data comparing yields between a GE crop and non-GE parent version of that crop (which is the correct crop to compare it to because it means that the non-GE parent crop has the same genetic background but without the genetic engineering), ‘what has been found is that the GE yield is not better than the non-GE equivalent crop yield. In the case of some crops, particularly soya, the GE crop actually has a yield drag’ (Claire Robinson, interview at GMO mini Summit, November 2013).

RESEARCH INTO GE RESEARCH

In 2011 there was a study looking at 97 papers on GE from the technical literature. Michael Hansen, interviewed at the GMO mini-summit in November 2013, explains what came out of the study: ‘what they found was, for studies that had been funded by industry, i.e. where there is a financial conflict, they didn't see any statistically significant differences between whether the study found adverse effects or no problem. However, when they looked at professional conflicts, whether even one or more authors on paper came from industry, it turns out there were 41 papers where there was professional conflict. All 41 of those papers were favourable to GE. There were then 51 papers where they could not identify a professional conflict of interest. When they looked at those, 39 didn't find problems, but 12 of them did.’

Another study found that molecular biologists and biotech scientists tend to view biotechnology as no problem. Whereas ecologists or other 'broad aspect' scientists were more open to the fact that GE is a complicated issue and that there could be adverse effects.

THE DIFFICULTIES OF RESEARCHING AND RAISING QUESTIONS ABOUT GE

One has to place the discussion on GE crops in the context of how difficult it is to research GE crops. The first difficulty has been in getting the material to research. This has to come with the permission of the companies that have produced the GE material. This has often not been forthcoming. Though, more recently, this problem has eased.

A further difficulty for independent researchers is the reaction from (some of) the scientific community to research that raises questions about GE crops and food. One of the best known examples is that of Arpad Pustzai. He was very much a proponent of GE in the late 1990s when he was chosen to lead a team of over 20 scientists in three different institutes to create protocols to assess the safety of genetically engineered organisms.

Without going into the whole story, what is relevant here is that because of what he found, he changed his perspective and then accepted an invitation to speak on television where, as explained by Jeffry Smith at the GMO mini summit in November 2013, ‘he said that he didn't think it was safe for humans to be experimental guinea pigs eating GMOs. This was a huge media time bomb! It was picked up all over Europe. The Director of the Institute was very proud of Arpad...and described it as world-shaking news and issued a press release’.

‘Then two phone calls from the UK Prime Minister's office. The next day the Director fired Dr. Arpad Pusztai after 35 years - and silenced him with threats of a lawsuit. The 20-member team was dismantled...Seven months and one heart attack later, Pusztai's gag order was lifted by Order of Parliament. Then a media storm hit with over 700 articles in the UK alone and within 10 weeks of the gag order being lifted, the tipping point of consumer rejections against GMOs occurred in Europe. The food companies got rid of them because of consumer concern, generated in large part by the efforts of Dr. Pustzai.’

There are a number of other examples of this kind of mistreatment of scientists who have raised questions about GE crops and food. The peer pressure is great, as indicated, for example, by a committee of enquiry in New Zealand in which a number of scientists ‘phoned a member of the New Zealand Royal Commission of Inquiry on Genetic Modification, Sue Kedgley, expressing concerns about GMOs but were unwilling to testify because of fear of losing their jobs’.

A TIPPING POINT BEING REACHED AMONGST CONSUMERS IN THE USA?

The example in the section above shows how consumers in Europe rejected GE crops before they took off. In the USA, which for the rest of the world is really a kind
of GE laboratory, it looks like the anti-GE voice amongst consumers may be reaching a tipping point. The recent discussion has revolved around the question of labelling. In both California and Washington, the labelling lobby lost by a very narrow margin, with record amounts of money being spent by the food industry to prevent labelling. In Washington, controversies have arisen about trying to hide sources of funding. More recently in Connecticut, a law has been passed to label GE foods. Resistance to GE has been steadily on the increase in the USA as more questions are raised. If there is a tipping point in which more and more companies decide that there isn't a future in marketing GE foods this could have big implications for GE crops and food worldwide. It is bound to affect the thinking of consumers worldwide.

FROM INDIA

India introduced Bt cotton in 2002. A parliamentary committee in that country, appointed by the Supreme Court, gave a damning report in August 2012 on the record to date and recommended and 10-year moratorium on field trials of all GE foods, and termination of all trials of transgenic crops.

Tiruvadi Jagadisan, former managing director of Monsanto in India accused his former employer of faking scientific data with the specific intent of evading the Government of India's regulatory requirements. Incredibly, as Jeffry Smith explains in an interview, ‘Monsanto's reply did not deny that they submitted faked data to government regulatory agencies in order to get commercial approval for the GM crop products in India. Monsanto's response to the allegations has been to put the blame squarely on the Indian regulatory system for accepting the bogus data they provided them.’

Those tracking suicides of farmers in the areas where Bt cotton is grown have found a significant increase in numbers since Bt cotton was introduced and link this to increased indebtedness. For more information, see Center for Human Rights and Global Justice, ‘Every Thirty Minutes: Farmer Suicides, Human Rights, and the Agrarian Crisis in India’ (New York: NYU School of Law, 2011).

WHAT IF?

Once introduced, who knows where genetic engineering may go. At present there is a lot of debate about whether genetically engineered salmon should be approved in the USA. These salmon are voracious eaters and the fear is based on the question of what impact they might have if they escape the fish farms where they will be raised. Senator Lisa Murkowski from Alaska calls this ‘Jurassic-Park Science’. And there are plans to genetically engineer other types of fish, pigs and cows. Jeffry Smith again, with another example: ‘They want to genetically engineer the mothering instinct out of livestock to put them into factory farms.’

Then there are the examples of the genetic engineering that was stopped at the last minute. One of these was the genetically engineered bacteria Klebsiella, which was about to be released when there was a demand for testing in a real world situation. Elaine Ingham points out that if she and others hadn't stopped it, ‘it could have rendered large swaths of land in North America completely sterile because the genetically engineered bacteria was turning the crops roots into alcohol.’

Another example of a near disaster was the engineering of the bacteria pseudomonas syringa to spray on strawberries to stop the frost. It was stopped because someone pointed out that certain weeds are also killed by the frost and it may cause a problem if this didn't happen. What was learnt subsequently was that this same bacteria is responsible for condensing water and causing rain.

THE GRADUAL UNRAVELLING OF DNA COMPLEXITY

The Human Genome project, launched in 1990, was completed in 2002. Scientists expected to find 100,000 genes but they only found 25,000, indicating a far more complex system of genes 'teaming up'.

Dr. Thierry Vrain points out how it was then made ‘so obvious that the genome was not at all what we thought it was. We are actually dealing with a very sensitive ecosystem of genes with a lot of regulatory sequences of which we know nothing’. He goes on to add: ‘The genetic engineering industry and experiments are based on the previous paradigm where basically you insert the gene in the genome and you expect one protein. Of course, with knowing that the genome is a very sensitive ecosystem, if you force a gene or a bacterial and viral construct in the middle of an ecosystem you can expect some disturbances. You can see that you are not getting one protein, you are getting many proteins and this is documented.’

Very recently, coming out of the Encyclopaedia of DNA elements Project (ENCODE), is a report shedding yet more light on the complexity of DNA and genes.

‘For over 40 years we have assumed that DNA changes affecting the genetic code solely impact how proteins are made,’ said lead author John Stamatoyannopoulos, University of Washington associate professor of genome sciences and of medicine. ‘Now we know that this basic assumption about reading the human genome missed half of the picture,’ he said. ‘Many DNA changes that appear to alter protein sequences may actually cause disease by disrupting gene control programmes or even both mechanisms simultaneously.’ (http://www.news24.com/Technology/News/Scientists-discover-second-secret… )

The main point is that the world of genes is much more complex than initially thought and research is throwing this up all the time. There are those who argue that gene technology is far ahead of the science. This is not so surprising when one sees the benefits to the companies promoting it.

AGRO-ECOLOGY AS A SUSTAINABLE ALTERNATIVE TO TRANSITION TOWARDS

The presumption is often that the development of agriculture should continue along the same ongoing path of jumping from one technology to the next. First it was fertilisers and pesticides as a technology package along with hybrid seeds. Now it is genetic engineering to address the shortcomings that these have thrown up. This is very much a 'magic-bullet' approach to solving problems of farming and food around the world. It is a self-perpetuating perspective that reinforces itself and is driven by those who benefit most from it and who pour billions of dollars into research and PR towards ongoing technology development.

At the same time there is another perspective that has been consistently voiced over the years but has remained sidelined. It doesn't have the billions of dollars to back it up with research and PR. In many ways this alternative approach is the truly modern farming of today and for the future. It is a holistic approach that looks at the whole complex picture of social, ecological and economic factors together. Firstly, it recognises, builds on and strengthens the existing knowledge and practice of farmers.

Secondly, it is very much based on understanding and working with ecosystems as people farm their land. This is reinforced by a lot of modern science's research into the complexities of ecosystems, particularly in the soil. Thirdly this much more holistic approach to farming understands that the important thing is to sustain economic viability, not just to go for short term economic gains. A short term economic outlook has been the approach of industrial agriculture, often failing to take account of all the costs as one should do in a properly economic approach. The end result is unsustainability.

Transitioning towards an agro-ecological approach means using technology carefully and in a way that doesn't create dependency and that doesn't damage the ecosystem processes on which all future production depends. Agro-ecology is about ensuring agricultural biodiversity while also being productive, not simplifying production to large areas of monocropping, which depends on ever more expensive oil-based inputs to keep it going. Genetic engineering is industry's next 'magic-bullet tool' in an ever more dependant agricultural approach.

The alternative approach is well articulated in the UN's International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) report which came out in 2008. This report argues strongly for support to small-scale farming. The opening paragraph of a fact sheet summarising the report puts it like this: ‘Agriculture is at a crossroads; which path we choose today will have far-reaching consequences for our ability to feed ourselves while regenerating the imperilled ecosystems of the world. The convergence of today's climate, energy, food and economic crises urgently calls for reorienting our food and agricultural systems towards sustainability, health, bio-cultural diversity, ecological resilience and equity.’ (See here)

A shift towards agro-ecology provides this reorientation.

THE ETHICAL QUESTIONS

For many people there are serious ethical questions surrounding the move towards genetic engineering. First, is it right that people should be 'playing God' as they change the whole course of evolution by mixing and matching any number of species, crossing barriers that have never been crossed before and wouldn't be crossed naturally? Secondly, is it right to patent life forms? Are these not everybody's property. All through human history life forms have been the common property of everyone. Why now would one want to turn life forms into private property?

* John Wilson is a Zimbabwean facilitator and activist working at many different levels from community to continent to help strengthen the development and spread of agro-ecology and of the food sovereignty movement.

* THE VIEWS OF THE ABOVE ARTICLE ARE THOSE OF THE AUTHOR/S AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF THE PAMBAZUKA NEWS EDITORIAL TEAM

* BROUGHT TO YOU BY PAMBAZUKA NEWS

* Please do not take Pambazuka for granted! Become a Friend of Pambazuka and make a donation NOW to help keep Pambazuka FREE and INDEPENDENT!

* Please send comments to editor[at]pambazuka[dot]org or comment online at Pambazuka News.