Remember our 'GM Dirty Dozen', which we published in response to an outrageously pro-genetic modification (GM) speech by UK environment minister, Owen Paterson MP? Mr Paterson has now replied to us – still without lifting his eyes from the biotech industry's book of approved responses. We've collected his arguments, and countered his answers with more of our own. Suffice to say, he'll soon find another letter from us in his in-tray.

‘GM Dirty Dozen’

GM has yet to demonstrate its potential to alleviate poverty [1], while non-GM farming practices have [2].

GM and intensive, conventional agriculture crops do not consistently provide either improved yields, or reduced agricultural (including energy) inputs [1, 3, 4].

Owen Paterson response

The evidence on the impact of current GM crops is variable but does indicate that they have delivered both economic and environmental benefits. Some of the recent studies which have indicated this are available at the following links:

ANH-Intl reply

Mr Paterson chooses not to refute these arguments, preferring instead merely to provide several references that purport to show beneficial effects of GM crops. His response gives little indication that he has read any of the reports he cites, or indeed the references we provided in our ‘GM Dirty Dozen’.

Widespread adoption of GM crops encourages monoculture and reduces biodiversity. According to the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) [1], a research programme operated by the United Nations Development Programme that involved 400 scientists from 60 countries and published its findings in 2008, GM technology threatens biodiversity in several ways:

  • Although yield increases due to GM are inconsistent, “To the extent that transgenic innovations support yield growth (or reduce crop losses to pests and diseases), they could alleviate pressure to expand crop production into currently uncultivated areas, endangering the natural biodiversity that exists there”

  • Outcrossing to wild or agricultural relatives, a risk that varies by crop

  • Genetic 'narrowing' resulting from widespread adoption of a single transgenic trait, e.g. insecticidal Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) genes

  • Widespread adoption of the new, transgenic varieties may accelerate the pace at which traditional crops are abandoned

  • “Gene flow from conventional varieties to landraces frequently occurs...and is often consciously exploited by farmers. It is likely that...farmers would consciously select for transgenic traits that confer an advantage”.

The maintenance of biodiversity is of prime importance in feeding a hungry world: “Biological diversity underpins ecosystem services [the elements of ecosystems and their processes that are of specific benefit to people] and...is maintained by these processes...ecosystem services directly support over one billion people living in extreme poverty” [2].

‘GM Dirty Dozen’

Nearly all major developments in improving yields, drought resistance, insect or pathogen resistance, even in recent years, have been the result of non-GM plant breeding techniques [1, 5].

There are no benefits that have yet to be attributed to commercial GM crops that have not already been attributed to non-GM crops (e.g. insect or herbicide resistance, drought or heat tolerance, nutritional enhancement) [5].

Owen Paterson response

I do not believe that GM and non-GM breeding techniques should be seen as competing or mutually exclusive alternatives. We should be open to all the options that can help to make production more efficient and sustainable.

ANH-Intl reply

This argument is the equivalent of Mr Paterson sticking his fingers in his ears and singing “la la la”. We provided evidence that GM does not “help to make production more efficient and sustainable”, yet Mr Paterson appears to believe that we need GM on precisely those grounds.

The sustainability of GM crops is questionable, to say the least. Because the first GM crops were released for public consumption a mere 18 years ago, public and environment alike have since been subjected to an uncontrolled experiment. The laboratory techniques used to produce GM crops are the source of considerable concern. ‘Cassettes’ of genetic material responsible for specific traits have been spliced into GM crops, a technique that also requires viral genetic material to be transferred. Considerable evidence indicates adverse and unpredictable effects to consumers of GM foods and the wider environment.

Mr Paterson’s answer also hints at the issue of ‘co-existence’ between GM and conventionally grown or organic crops. In practice, it is impossible to prevent GM pollen or seed from escaping into the wild, with subsequent potential to form new varieties of plant containing the GM traits. The very existence of organic agriculture is threatened by the escape of GM seed or pollen into the wild, since organic crops that contain GM material can no longer be described as ‘organic’. A Nature Biotechnology article points out the disproportionately negative consequences for non-GM farmers whose products become mixed, or contaminated, with GM products, whereas the reverse situation results in no penalties for the GM farmer.

Outcrossing between GM plants and wild varieties has the potential to reduce biodiversity [1], by conferring survival advantages to the wild-type plants via GM transgenic material. In-development GM wheat has been shown to outcross up to 6 times more frequently than non-GM wheat, and researchers have found evidence of established, 'feral' GM-containing rapeseed (canola) plants in the USA. There is ongoing controversy in Mexico over potential outcrossing between GM and native maize varieties, which is particularly acute since Mexico is the centre of both origin and biodiversity for maize. “There is no possibility of coexistence without contamination,” [molecular geneticist Elena] Alvarez-Buylla said. "One gene can make a large difference. Do we want to run the risk?"

Owen Paterson response

I also understand that no crops have been bred conventionally which are resistant to glyphosate or provide significant resistance to the corn borer pest or papaya ring spot virus – so there may not always be alternatives available.

ANH-Intl reply

The statement that no crops have been conventionally bred for resistance to glyphosate (Roundup) herbicide is a non-sequitur that presumes the desirability of continued reliance on what may soon be widely recognised as a highly toxic herbicide. 

Not only is it perfectly feasible that plant varieties may one day be conventionally bred with resistance to these specific pests, but there are methods of pest control that do not rely on either GM or pesticides. Integrated pest management (IPM) was described by the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) as follows, in its report Agriculture At A Crossroads [1]: “IPM...in general emphasized cultural and biological controls...and selective application of chemicals that do not harm populations of pest predators or parasitoids...based on scientific understanding of agroecosystems described as complex webs of interacting species that can be influenced to achieve crop protection...IPM can deliver effective crop protection and pesticide reduction without yield loss.”

Conventionally grown hybrids with some resistance to the corn borer already exist, but their acreage has decreased since the advent of GM varieties. And, although 75% of the Hawaiian papaya crop is GM, Hawaiian papayas represent a tiny proportion of world supply.

Owen Paterson response

New crop traits can be developed using GM that cannot be achieved by conventional means, or not so easily.

ANH-Intl reply

This may be true, as by transferring genetic material between unrelated species, GM processes are unlike anything found in nature. However, just because we can do something, doesn’t mean we should. There is presently no compelling evidence that GM is necessary to improve crop management, and neither has GM been shown to outperform conventional breeding methods [1,3,4,5]. It is simply unnecessary.

Furthermore, the precautionary principle – as defined by the European Union (EU) – states that, “Where scientific data do not permit a complete evaluation of the risk, recourse to this principle may...be used to stop distribution or order withdrawal from the market of products likely to be hazardous.” This clearly applies in the case of new-to-nature GM organisms containing genetic information from species that may be entirely unrelated to them, and especially, “New crop traits...that cannot be achieved by conventional means”.

Owen Paterson response

Based on a comprehensive appraisal of the evidence there should be no real doubt that GM could play a useful role alongside other breeding methods to help us meet future challenges.

ANH-Intl reply

This is a remarkable statement, which Mr Paterson neglects to substantiate with any data. 

‘GM Dirty Dozen’

GM crops may pose serious, unexpected and unpredictable long-term risks to human health and the environment [6, 7].

GM threatens the biodiversity and the viability of wild plant and animal species [7].

Safety assessments used for approving GM cultivation are inadequate [17, 18].

Owen Paterson response

In the European Union GM crops and foods are subject to an independent evaluation of their impact on human health and the environment.  

ANH-Intl reply

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), one of the seven 'institutions' of the European Union, assesses GM crops for safety and environmental impact. EFSA has received strong and sustained criticism over the conflicted interests of members of several of its scientific panels, including the GMO Panel. Most recently, the EU Ombudsman delivered a withering report on EFSA’s efforts – or lack of them – to incorporate the recommendations he made following a case of ‘revolving doors’ between EFSA’s GMO Unit and biotech giant Syngenta. Even after an EFSA policy designed to promote independence in scientific decision making was publicly launched, to much fanfare, in late 2011, Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) revealed that, “No strong rules against conflicts of interest have been introduced, so there is a serious risk that these will continue”. Clearly, EFSA’s ‘independence’ is not as cut and dried as Mr Paterson would have us believe.

Owen Paterson response

This considers all the potential risk factors and takes full account of the scientific evidence.

ANH-Intl reply

EFSA’s GM approval process overwhelmingly relies on biotech industry data. CEO again: “EFSA generally bases its risk assessments on the dossier of studies carried out by the very same companies that stand to earn enormous profits from the product’s approval...The system of having industry test its own products prior to marketing is laid down in EU law and EFSA has no power to change it...EFSA has repeatedly ignored or dismissed hundreds of independent studies showing harm from products it evaluates,” including GM crops.

Owen Paterson response

This process is robust enough to ensure that any approved GM products will be as safe as their non-GM counterparts.

ANH-Intl reply

EFSA and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) rely on the concept of ‘substantial equivalence’ between GM and non-GM crops. The consequence of reliance on this dogma is well summed up by the EU’s Chief Scientific Advisor, Prof Anne Glover: “I would be confident in saying that there is no more risk in eating GMO food than eating conventionally farmed food”. The grave inadequacy of this approach has been pointed out by molecular geneticist Dr Michael Antoniou: “At present it is only required that the amounts of a few known components (nutrients, allergens and natural toxins) be measured in order for substantial equivalence to be established...Since genetic engineering has the potential to unexpectedly produce novel toxins and allergens, the assessment of only known constituents is insufficient.”

Owen Paterson response

Although various claims have been made that GM foods pose a health risk none of these has stood up to close scientific scrutiny.

ANH-Intl reply

Rather than subject serious scientific questions about the health risks of GM foods to close and impartial scrutiny, pro-GM scientists and organisations have repeatedly closed ranks to dismiss the research and smear the researchers. The story of Dr Arpad Pusztai, whose research indicated a link between GM potatoes and cancer, growth defects and immune compromise in rats, is instructive. Instead of properly examining his data, pro-GM governments, industry and even his own academic institution destroyed his career. More recently, Prof Gilles-Eric Séralini’s group has encountered the same array of vested interests after publishing research linking Monsanto’s NK601 GM maize and Roundup (glyphosate) herbicide with tumours and early death in rats. These and other examples give the lie to Mr Paterson’s claim that GM is scientifically unblemished in terms of its health effects.

‘GM Dirty Dozen’

GM crops may generate ‘superweeds’ and ‘superpests’ [8, 9, 10, 11, 12].

Owen Paterson response

The potential for weed or pest resistance is a general issue for conventional agriculture, so it is not specific to GM production. Farmers need to practice effective crop management and where necessary should use a range of control strategies to guard against the build up of resistance. The fact that in certain countries some weeds or pests have developed resistance over time does not necessarily detract from the overall benefit that can be obtained from the GM cropping system.

ANH-Intl reply

This is a prime example of the pro-biotech argument changing dramatically over time. In 2004, Monsanto was promoting a study [12] that, it said, indicated that rotating crops and pesticides did not reduce the incidence of chemical resistance: glyphosate alone would do the job. Now, however, the argument has shifted to say that 'superweeds' and 'superpests' are no different from resistance that occurs in conventional agriculture.

With GM crops, insecticide use increases dramatically once insecticide resistance develops. Although crops with the Bt trait express an insecticide in every cell, farmers are forced to resort to chemical pesticides once resistance has developed. Furthermore, ‘superweeds’ that develop as a result of GM crop cultivation require increasingly toxic solutions.

‘GM Dirty Dozen’

GM places the control of the world’s staple crops in the hands of a few corporations [1].

Owen Paterson response

Companies are not free to market GM seeds without appropriate regulatory controls, and the seeds will only be widely used if they provide a recognised benefit. Should a concern arise that a company is abusing a dominant market position there are well-established mechanisms to address this.

ANH-Intl reply

See above for the problems with “regulatory controls” of GM seeds.

Mr Paterson's answer completely ignores how world's seed supply has been consolidated into the hands of a very small number of corporations in recent years. An article by Philip H Howard of Michigan State University, USA, visualised the changes that occurred between 1996 and 2008. He describes the series of mergers and acquisitions that led to the development of what he calls the 'Big Six' biotechnology firms: Monsanto, Dow, Syngenta, DuPont, Bayer and BASF. He concludes as follows: “The result is increasing monopoly/oligopoly power for a decreasing number of transnational corporations. This concentration of power is fundamentally incompatible with renewable agricultural practices that are barriers to large-scale capital accumulation, such as saving and replanting seed”. We see no evidence of the “well-established mechanisms” claimed by Mr Paterson coming into play to prevent this market consolidation.

‘GM Dirty Dozen’

GM threatens the viability of organic farming systems [13, 14, 15].

‘Co-existence’ of GM and non-GM agriculture is untenable [14, 15, 16].

Owen Paterson response

It is natural for crops to cross-pollinate each other whether they are conventional, organic or GM. This is not a safety issue and measures can be implemented to minimise cross-pollination to a low level, so there is a reasonable basis for people to exercise choice between different production systems. In this respect, the EU has agreed that conventional and organic products do not have to carry a GM label if they have an unintended or unavoidable presence of approved GM material below 0.9%. The Government will introduce pragmatic measures to segregate GM and non-GM crops before the former might be grown here commercially.

ANH-Intl reply

See above for the problems relating to cross-pollination, co-existence of GM and non-GM agriculture and loss of biodiversity.

Mr Paterson appears unaware, or unconcerned, by the inherent contradiction in stating that it is possible to “minimise”, rather than eliminate or prevent, cross-pollination, and that people can choose between production systems. Regardless of EU legislation, genuinely organic production systems aim for 0% GM throughout the production chain. Furthermore, moves are afoot in the EU to replace the present zero tolerance of non-approved GM material in food or animal feed with a 'technical zero' of 0.1% GM contamination. If this happens, there will be four significant consequences:

  1. Ensuring the purity of organic supply chains will become even more difficult

  2. There will be no guarantee that any food will be GM- free

  3. Many more people will be exposed to the potential health risks of GM foods

  4. Freedom of choice to refuse GM will be almost entirely removed.

‘GM Dirty Dozen’

The public has demonstrated a consistent rejection of GM crop technology and consumes it usually only when it is unaware of its presence [19, 20, 21].

Owen Paterson response

Recent opinion surveys tend to show that most people don't have a strong view on GM crops and foods (for example, see http://www.igd.com/our-expertise/Shopper-Insight/ethics-and-health/4130/Consumer-Attitudes-to-GM-Foods/). This should not in any event influence regulatory decisions on the possible authorisation of GM products. Products which have passed a robust safety assessment should have fair access to the market, and then people can decide for themselves whether or not they want to buy them.

ANH-Intl reply

The far more comprehensive Eurobarometer survey of 2010 showed, like the IGD poll to which Mr Paterson points, that the proportion of respondents that oppose and approve of GM foods has remained basically the same over many years, indicating that they will never achieve widespread acceptance in the EU. This attitude has been acknowledged by biotechnlogy companies Monsanto and BASF apparently withdrawing from the EU GM market, to differing degrees. Mr Paterson would appear to hold the considered opinion of his electorate in lower regard than two of the world's biggest corporations.

His argument regarding “robust safety assessments” is fundamentally flawed – see above.

Call to action

  • The arguments presented here by Owen Paterson MP are precisely those that you'll see in the media, both in the UK and elsewhere, in the coming months as the biotech industry continues its efforts to put GM food on every plate. We hope we've provided you with some useful ammunition to counter the increasingly threadbare biotech propaganda! Please share this article widely, via blogs, email and social media, and ensure that biotech misinformation is challenged wherever it arises.

References

  1. IAASTD, Agriculture at a crossroads, 2008, Island Press, USA.

  2. INRA-CIRAD. Agrimonde: Scenarios and Challenges for Feeding the World in 2050. 2009. INRA-CIRAD, France. 

  3. Rodale Institute. The Farming Systems Trial. Rodale Institute, Kutztown, PA, USA.

  4. Pimentel D. 2006. Impacts of organic farming on the efficiency of energy use in agriculture. An Organic Center State of Science Review, Washington DC, USA. 

  5. Conway G. One Billion Hungry Can We Feed the World? 2012, Comstock, USA.

  6. Smith JM. Genetic Roulette: The documented health risks of genetically engineered foods. 2007. Yes! Books, USA.

  7. Garcia MA, Altieri MA. Transgenic Crops: Implications for Biodiversity and Sustainable Agriculture. Bull Sci Technol Soc, 2005; 25: 335-353. [Abstract]

  8. Funke T et al. Molecular basis for the herbicide resistance of Roundup Ready crops. PNAS, 2006; 103: 13010-13015. [Full paper] 

  9. Nandula VK et al. Glyphosate-resistant weeds: current status and future outlook. Out. Pest Manage. 2005; 16:183–187. [Full paper] 

  10. Ives AR, Andow D. Evolution of resistance to Bt crops: directional selection in structured environments. Ecol. Lett. 2002; 5: 792–801. [Abstract]

  11. Ives AR et al. The evolution of resistance to two-toxin pyramid transgenic crops. Ecol Appl. 2011; 21: 503–515. [Abstract]

  12. Gilbert N. Case studies: A hard look at GM crops. Nature, 2013; 7447: 24-26. [News feature] 

  13. Organic Agriculture Protection Fund, Saskatchewan, Canada

  14. Levidow L, Boschert K. Coexistence or contradiction? GM crops versus alternative agricultures in Europe. Geoforum. 2008; 39: 174-190. [Abstract and full paper] 

  15. Devos Y et al. Coexistence in the EU—return of the moratorium on GM crops? Nature Biotechnology. 2008; 26: 1223-1225. [Abstract]

  16. Lee M, Burrell R. Liability for the Escape of GM Seeds: Pursuing the ‘Victim’? The Modern Law Review. 2002; 65: 517–537. [Abstract] 

  17. Chopra S. Corrupt to the Core: Memoirs of a Health Canada whistleblower. 2009. KOS Publishing, Canada.

  18. Antoniou M et al. GMO Myths and Truths Report. An evidence-based examination of the claims made for the safety and efficacy of genetically modified crops. June 2012. London. 

  19. Frewer L et al. Societal aspects of genetically modified foods. Food and Chemical Toxicology. 2004; 42: 1181-1193. [Abstract] 

  20. Gaskell G et al. GM foods and the misperception of risk perception. Risk Analysis. 2004; 24: 185-194. [Abstract] 

  21. Durant RF, Legge JS. Public opinion, risk perceptions, and genetically modified food regulatory policy reassessing the calculus of dissent among European citizens. European Union Politics. 2005; 6: 181-200. [Abstract] 

 

ANH-Europe Homepage

ANH Say NO to GM campaign page