Under huge pressure from the multinational biotechnology companies and seed merchants, attempts are being made all over the world to plant genetically modified varieties of many food crops on as large a scale as possible. Many of these crops are engineered to be resistant to specific chemicals, patented and manufactured by Monsanto, Aventis and other large companies. These multinationals suggest that their new crops will "feed the world" by providing greater yields and that they will help the environment by reducing the need for herbicides and pesticides in farm management. However there is now mounting evidence that yields are often no greater than for conventional crops. There is also abundant evidence that as weeds develop herbicide resistance, over the course of a few years, chemical use on farms actually goes up instead of down. These varieties have alien genetic materials inserted into them. We are told that they are "substantially equivalent" to non-GM crops, but they are inherently unstable and have not been shown to be safe and healthy either for human or animal consumption.

What are Genetically Modified Organisms?

(from ‘Genetic Engineering, Food, and our Environment’ by Luke Anderson)

‘A biochemical process is used to cut the strings of DNA in different places and select the required genes. These genes are usually then inserted into circular pieces of DNA (plasmids) found in bacteria. Because the bacteria reproduce rapidly, within a short time thousands of identical copies (clones) can be made of the ‘new’ gene. Two principal methods can then be used to insert a ‘new’ gene into the DNA of a plant that is to be engineered.

1. A ferry is made with a piece of genetic material taken from a virus or bacterium. This is used to infect the plant and in so doing to smuggle the ‘new’ gene into the plant’s own DNA.

2. Or, the genes are coated onto large numbers of tiny pellets of gold or tungsten, which are fired with a special gun into a layer of cells taken from the recipient plant. Some of these pellets may pass through the nucleus of a cell and deposit their package of genes, which in certain cases may be integrated into the cell’s own DNA.

Because the techniques used to transfer genes have an extremely low success rate, the scientists need to be able to find out which of the cells have taken up the new DNA. So, before the gene is transferred, a ‘marker gene’ is attached, which codes for resistance to an antibiotic. Plant cells which have been engineered are then grown in a medium containing this antibiotic, and the only ones able to survive are those which have taken up the ‘new’ genes with the antibiotic resistance marker attached. These cells are then cultured and grown into mature plants. A piece of DNA taken from a virus or bacterium (called a ‘promoter’) is also inserted along with the ‘new’ gene in order to ‘switch it on’ in its new host. Promoters, which often force genes to express their traits at very high levels, also have the potential to influence neighbouring genes. The promoter may, for example, stimulate a plant to produce higher levels of a substance which is harmless at low levels but which becomes toxic when present in higher concentrations. As it is not possible to insert a new gene with any accuracy, the gene transfer may also disrupt the tightly controlled network of DNA in the organism. Current understanding of the way in which genes are regulated is extremely limited, and any change to the DNA of an organism at any point may well have knock-on effects that are impossible to predict or control.’

It is interesting to see this last point being made in the Feb 2002 issue of ISB News, a pro-biotechnology news bulletin for the scientific community.

".... due to a lack of understanding of the underlying molecular mechanisms of transgene introduction and integration, plant transformation remains more an art than a science. All of the three main techniques used for plant transformation, Agrobacterium-mediated, protoplast, and particle bombardment transformation, result in unpredictable integration of transgenes. This has led to concerns that transformation might indirectly alter the expression of other genes, resulting in a toxic or allergenic phenotype.... Frequently, many transgenic plants will contain multiple copies of the transgene, either in the form of tandem repeats at a single locus, or scattered throughout the genome of the plant.... Currently, transgene integration into the host genome is essentially random, regardless of the method used to perform the transformation."

New Report Challenges Fundamentals of Genetic Engineering; Study Questions Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods

U.S. Newswire January 15, 2002

NEW YORK -- A study released today reveals a critical, long-over looked flaw in the science behind the multibillion dollar genetic engineering industry, raising serious questions about the safety of genetically engineered foods. In a new review of scientific literature reported in the February issue of Harper's Magazine, Dr. Barry Commoner, a prominent biologist, demonstrates that the bioengineering industry, which now accounts for 25-50 percent of the U.S. corn and soybean crop, relies on a 40-year-old theory that DNA genes are in total control of inheritance in all forms of life. According to this theory -- the "central dogma" – the outcome of transferring a gene from one organism to another is always "specific, precise and predictable," and therefore safe.

Taking issue with this view, Commoner summarises a series of scientific reports that directly contradict the established theory. For example, last year the $3 billion Human Genome Project found there are too few human genes to account for the vast inherited differences between people and lower animals or plants, indicating that agents other than DNA must contribute to genetic complexity. The central dogma claims a one-to-one correspondence between a gene's chemical composition and the structure of the particular protein that engenders an inherited trait. But Dr. Commoner notes that under the influence of specialized proteins that carry out "alternative splicing," a single gene can give rise to a variety of different proteins, resulting in more than a single inherited trait per gene. As a result, the gene's effect on inheritance cannot be predicted simply from its chemical composition -- frustrating one of the main purposes of both the Human Genome Project and biotechnology.

Commoner's research sounds a public alarm concerning the processes by which agricultural biotechnology companies genetically modify food crops. Scientists simply assume the genes they insert into these plants always produce only the desired effect with no other impact on the plant's genetics. However, recent studies show that the plant's own genes can be disrupted in transgenic plants. Such outcomes are undetected because there is little or no governmental regulation of the industry. "Genetically engineered crops represent a huge uncontrolled experiment whose outcome is inherently unpredictable," Commoner concludes. "The results could be catastrophic."

Dr. Commoner cites a number of recent studies that have broken the DNA gene's exclusive franchise on the molecular explanation of inheritance. He warns that "experimental data, shorn of dogmatic theories, point to the irreducible complexity of the living cell, which suggests that any artificially altered genetic system must sooner or later give rise to unintended, potentially disastrous consequences." Commoner charges that the central dogma, a seductively simple explanation of heredity, has led most molecular geneticists to believe it was "too good not to be true." As a result, the central dogma has been immune to the revisions called for by the growing array of contradictory data, allowing the biotechnology industry to unwittingly impose massive, scientifically unsound practices on agriculture.

"Dr. Commoner's work challenges the legitimacy of the agricultural biotechnology industry," said Andrew Kimbrell, Director of the Center on Food Safety. "For years, multibillion dollar biotech companies have been selling the American people and our government on the safety of their products. We now see their claims of safety are based on faulty assumptions that don't hold up to rigorous scientific review." The study reported in Harper's Magazine is the initial publication of a new initiative called The Critical Genetics Project directed by Dr. Commoner in collaboration with molecular geneticist Dr. Andreas Athanasiou, at the Center for the Biology of Natural Systems, Queens College, City University of New York. Contact: Dr. Barry Commoner of the Center for the Biology of Natural Systems, 718-670-4182

The Market for Genetically Modified Crops

Demand Surges for Non-GMO Animal Feed in Europe

From ‘animalfeed.org.uk’, October 2001

European demand for animal feed guaranteed to be free of genetically modified organisms (GMO) has soared this year after supermarkets agreed to pay more to satisfy worried consumers, say the certifiers Cert ID. British supermarket chains such as Tesco and Asda are trailblazers in selling meat raised without GMOs, but the trend is rapidly spreading to the continent.

About four million tonnes of non-biotech soymeal, mostly from Brazil, was guaranteed this year by certification firm Cert ID (www.cert-id.com), up from 700,000 tonnes in 2000, President Jochen Koester told Reuters.

The amount could more than double next year if buyers were willing to pay the higher prices for certified material, he added in a telephone interview. "If the demand would be there, I think we can easily crank up the certified amount from Brazil to 10 million tonnes and more annually," Koester said.

Soymeal is a major ingredient in animal feed and increasing soy supplies are from GM crops. Many consumers are worried that GMOs might damage their health or the environment. GMOs erupted as a major issue in Europe in 1998 and several UK retailers promised to sell non-GM meat. They had failed, however, to realise the complex arrangements needed for certification and balked at paying higher prices. Several UK retailers agreed late last year to pay extra, opening the way for the big increase in supplies of certified non-GMO soymeal, Koester said.

Total demand in the European Union for soymeal certified as non-GMO was unclear, but a report by the U.S. Department of Agriculture earlier this year estimated it at 20-25 percent of the roughly 28 million tonnes used annually.

BRAZIL MAJOR SOURCE

Since about 70 percent of the U.S. soybean crop is planted with GM Roundup Ready soybeans, Brazil, which bans GMO crops, has become the major source of non-biotech soymeal. Some industry players have been wary about how many Brazilian farmers have illegally planted GMO crops to boost yields, especially in the south which borders Argentina, where 90-95 percent of soybeans are from genetic crops. But Koester said the worries were overdone. "There is a big myth about that. All of Brazil has on average contamination from illegal GMOs of about 6-8 percent, and that is mostly in the extreme south where some regions have perhaps up to 35 percent," he said. Even in the southern state of Rio Grande do Sul, where contamination is highest, Cert ID has granted non-GMO certification to some smaller cooperatives. Most certified output is from the central states.

Brazil is the second biggest soybean producer after the United States,responsible for about a fifth of global output. Last week, a Brazilian trade group estimated production in the 2001/02 season at a record 38.4 million tonnes, up 12.5 percent from 2000/01.

Of the four million tonnes of soymeal certified this year, all was from Brazil except 500,000 tonnes from India, which also bans GMO crops and has the potential to boost its certified supplies of non-GMO soymeal, Koester said. It was unclear how many Brazilian suppliers would be certified in time for the next harvest that begins in February.

Some buyers were still reluctant to pay a premium, so some of this year's four million tonnes from certified farms was sold as standard soymeal. Koester declined to discuss the level of premiums, but the USDA report pegged them at $1.50 to $4.00 per tonne.

Sainsbury's

"In response to overwhelming customer concern we have eliminated GM ingredients from all our own brand food, pet food and dietary supplements."

http://www.sainsbury.co.uk/gm/

Tesco

"In the UK, Tesco has removed GM ingredients from all own brand products."

http://www.tesco.com/everyLittleHelps/dobEnvironmentDetail.htm#tagm

Waitrose

"No Waitrose own label product produced since the end of March 1999 contains GM ingredients as defined by law..."
"...With effect from the end of September 1999, all the soya and maize used in the production of the oils
and additives for Waitrose products came from "traditional" crops."

http://www.waitrose.com/about/policy_statements/genetic_modification/safety_

Do GM Crops Mean Less Pesticide Use?

Charles Benbrook / Pesticide Outlook Oct01

Charles Benbrook of the Northwest Science and Environmental Policy Center at Sandpoint (Idaho, USA) gives his views on the contention than GM crops have led to a reduction in pesticide use in the USA

Introduction

Spirited debate in the USA continues over the impact of genetically modified (GM) crop varieties on pesticide use. Biotechnology proponents have claimed since the mid-1990s that both herbicide-tolerant and Bt-transgenic varieties significantly reduce pesticide use, despite much empirical evidence to the contrary. This contention lies at the heart of industry efforts in the U.S. and Europe to build public support for contemporary GM crop technologies. Four years of official U.S. Department of Agriculture data are now available to test the claim that GM crops grown in the U.S. have significantly reduced pesticide use. Most independent analysts working with the USDA data have reached similar conclusions; with the possible exception of Bt-cotton, they have not. Herbicide-tolerant varieties have modestly reduced the average number of active ingredients applied per acre but have modestly increased the average pounds applied per acre. So, those who choose to measure herbicide use based on the former metric conclude that herbicide-tolerant varieties reduce herbicide use; those who favor the latter metric reach the opposite conclusion. Both are reasonable but incomplete ways to assess the overall impact of herbicide-tolerant varieties on herbicide use and the performance and sustainability of weed management systems. Bt corn and cotton account for most acres planted to Bt-transgenic varieties. Again, the insecticide use data are pretty clear. Bt cotton has reduced insecticide use in several states, whereas Bt corn has had little if any impacts on corn insecticide use. These findings come as no surprise to astute farmers or pest management experts. Herbicide tolerant varieties are designed to make it possible for farmers to rely on postemergence herbicides as the backbone of weed management programs. Any grower spending the extra money on such a variety is obviously going to rely more prominently on herbicides as the principle method for controlling weeds, in contrast to other farmers using multitactic integrated weed management systems that both spread out the burden in managing weeds and strive to reduce weed pressure in the first place.

Herbicide tolerant varieties have modestly increased herbicide use

Corn herbicides account for about 40% of the total pounds of herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides that are applied annually by U.S. farmers (Table 3.2, Economic Research Service [ERS], 1997). Soybean weed management is the second biggest market, accounting for about 68 million pounds applied annually. For this reason, attainment of national pesticide use reduction goals and minimizing environmental damage and public health risks in corn-soybean production areas depends in large measure on innovation in weed management systems in these two major crops. Four years of USDA soybean herbicide use data (1997- 2000) are available and support four conclusions (ERS, 1999; Duffy, 1999; Benbrook, 2001a):

•___ Slightly more pounds of herbicides are applied on the average acre of Roundup-Ready (RR) soybeans compared to the average acre planted to conventional soybean varieties.

•___ Fewer herbicide active ingredients are applied on the average acre of RR soybeans relative to the average conventional acre.

•___ Average per acre pounds of herbicide applied on RR soybeans exceeds by 2- to 10-fold herbicide use on the approximate 30% of soybean acres where farmers depend largely on low-dose imidazolinone and sulfonylurea herbicides.

•___ Herbicide use on RR soybean acres is gradually rising as a result of weed shifts, late-season weed escapes leading to a buildup in weed seedbanks, and the loss of susceptibility to glyphosate in some weed species (Hartzler, 1999; HRAC, 2001).

While RR soybean technology has not reduced herbicide use, it has certainly been a remarkable commercial success. Farmers have embraced the technology because it greatly simplifies soybean weed management and provides additional degrees of freedom in managing weeds (Gianessi and Carpenter, 2000; ERS, 1999). RR technology has also given farmers a welcomed alternative to the use of low-dose herbicides that are plagued by often-serious problems. These include high costs; frequent control problems; a long and growing list of resistant weeds; and, a tendency to trigger crop damage if not applied with considerable care and precision (Fernandez-Cornejo and McBride, 2000; Gianessi and Carpenter, 2000). RR soybeans are especially popular on problem fields where weeds have proven tough to manage (Gunsolus et al., 2001). Over 65% of soybeans planted in the U.S. in 2001 are RR soybean varieties. The May 2001 report "Troubled Times Amid Commercial Success for Roundup Ready Soybeans: Glyphosate Efficacy is Slipping and Unstable Transgene Expression Erodes Plant Defenses and Yields" provides a recent update of the commercial success of RR soybeans and their impacts on herbicide use, prices, yields, and plant health (Benbrook, 2001a). Corn herbicide use trends have been remarkably stable. Since 1971 the number of distinct herbicide active ingredients applied on the average acre of corn has risen from 1.09 actives to 1.75 in 1982 and 1.98 in 1991 (NASS, multiple years). The trend continued gradually upward throughout the 1990s and reached 2.7 herbicides in crop year 2000. In addition, the dominant corn herbicides have changed very little throughout this period, measured either by percent acres treated or pounds applied. Each year atrazine has alone accounted for about 30% of all corn herbicide acres treated and about 35% of pounds applied (Benbrook, 2001b). The acetanilide herbicides alachlor (largely replaced by acetochlor in 1994-1995 in the U.S.) and metolachlor (replaced by S-metolachlor in 19982000) have together accounted for another approximate 30 percent of total acres treated and over 40% of pounds applied. The average pounds of herbicides applied to corn peaked in 1982 at almost 3 pounds per acre and hovered in the

2.6 to 2.8 pounds range from 1991 through 1997. The first significant reduction in pounds applied occurred in 1998, when rates dropped from 2.63 pounds per acre to 2.47 pounds, based on USDA/NASS data. Roundup Ready (RR) corn hit the market in 1997. There are no accurate public sources of data on the acres planted to RR corn. A rough estimate of acres planted can be inferred from review of USDA corn pesticide use data. Assuming no-till usage of glyphosate remained the same in 1999-2000 as it had been in previous years, USDA data suggests that about 4% of corn acres must have been planted to Roundup Ready varieties. Monsanto's recommended RR corn systems include several optional herbicide programs ranging from a total-glyphosate system, to systems combining a pre- or at-plant residual herbicide followed by Roundup post-emergence, or a total post-emergence program involving applications of a residual post-product plus Roundup (Monsanto, 2000a and 2000b). In the total Roundup program, glyphosate is applied on average about 2.0 times. In 1999 the average application was about 0.7 pounds, resulting in 1.4 pounds of Roundup applied on the average acre of RR corn. An estimated 70% of RR corn acres were managed under the "Residual Herbicide Applied" program. Either before or at-planting in such programs, farmers apply a tank-mix containing a residual broadleaf product like atrazine at about 0.8 pounds per acre, plus an acetanilide herbicide at a rate of about 1.2 pounds per acre on average, mostly for grass weed control (see recommended rates on either Roundup labels or the labels of several herbicide products containing mixtures of atrazine and an acetanilide). Total corn herbicide use under the "Residual Herbicide Applied" program averages about 2.75 pounds per acre, with Roundup accounting for 0.75 pounds of this total. USDA data suggest that average per acre use on RR corn acres has risen from about 2.5 pounds in 1999 to 2.75 pounds in 2000 (Benbrook, 2001b). On conventional acres, about 2.25 pounds were applied in 1999 and 2.08 pounds in 2000. Accordingly, in 2000 the average RR corn acre was treated with about 30% more herbicide than the average non-GM corn acre. Four years of experience and data show that RR weed management systems require a modest to moderate increase in per-acre herbicide use. Moreover, use rates are trending upward because of shifts in the composition of weeds toward species less responsive to a contact herbicide like glyphosate; loss of susceptibility and/or the emergence of resistance in some weed species; and, greater weed pressure as a result of more frequent late-season weed escapes in RR crops.

References

Benbrook, C. (2000). Who Controls and Who Will Benefit from Plant Genomics?, invited paper AAAS Annual Meeting, 2000 Genome Seminar, electronically enhanced version accessible at http://www.biotech-info.net/ AAASgen.html

Benbrook, C. (2001a). Troubled Times Amid Commercial Success: Glyphosate Efficacy is Slipping and Unstable Transgene Expression Erodes Plant Defenses and Yields, Ag BioTech InfoNet Technical Paper Number 4, accessible at http://www.biotech-info.net/troubledtimes.html

Benbrook, C. (2001b). Factors Shaping Trends in Corn Herbicide Use, Ag BioTech InfoNet Technical Paper

Number 5, accessible at http://www.biotech-info.net/corn_reduct.html Benbrook, C. M.; Groth, E.; Halloran, J. M.; Hansen, M. K.; Marquardt, S. (1996). Pest Management at the Crossroads, Consumers Union, Yonkers, New York. Accessible at: http://www.pmac.net/order.htm

Duffy, M. (1999). "Does Planting GMO Seed Boost Farmers' Profits?", Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Iowa State University. Accessible at: http://www.leopold.iastate.edu/newsletter/99-3gmoduffy.html Economic Research Service (ERS), 1997. Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators, 1996-97, USDAERS Agricultural Handbook Number 712, Washington, D.C. Economic Research Service (1999). "Genetically Engineered Crops for Pest Management," ERS, U.S. Department of Agriculture, updated October 27, 1999. Accessible at: http://www.econ.ag.gov Environmental Defense and Union of Concerned Scientists (2001a). Appendix 3: Benbrook Benefits Assessment, submitted in response to the EPA revised risk-benefit assessment of Bt-crops. Accessible at: http://www.biotech-info.net/Bt_rereg.html

Environmental Defense and Union of Concerned Scientists (2001b). Appendix 2: Benbrook IRM Analysis, submitted in response to the EPA revised risk-benefit assessment of Bt-crops. Accessible at: http://www.biotech-info.net/Bt_rereg.html

Fernandez-Cornejo, J.; McBride, W. D. (2000). Genetically Engineered Crops for Pest Management in U.S.
Agriculture, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Economic Report Number
786, April 2000.
Gianessi, L. P.; Carpenter, J. E. (2000). Agricultural Biotechnology: Benefits of Transgenic Soybeans, National
Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, Washington, D.C., April 2000.
Gunsolus, J.; Durgan, B.; Becker, R. (2001). Cultural and Chemical Weed Control in Field Crops - 2001,
University of Minnesota Extension Service. Accessible at: http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/
cropsystems/components/DC3157.pdf

Hartzler, B. (1999). Are Roundup Ready Weeds In Your Future?, Department of Agronomy, Iowa State University Extension. Accessible at: http://www.weeds.iastate.edu/mgmt/qtr98-4/roundupfuture.htm Herbicide Resistance Action Committee (HRAC) (2001). International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds, Weed Science Society of America. Accessible at: http://www.weedscience.org/in.asp

Lewis, W. J.; van Lenteren, J. C.; Phaatak, S. C.; Tumlinson, J. H. (1997) A Total System Approach to Sustainable Pest Management, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 94, 12,243-12,248. Monsanto (2000a). The Roundup Ready Corn System: The Most Cost-Effective Choice for Absolute Weed Control, Monsanto Company, St. Louis, Missouri. Monsanto (2000b). 2000 Technology Use Guide: Technical Information About Monsanto Technologies, Plaines Region, Monsanto Company, St. Louis, Missouri. National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). "Agricultural Chemical Usage: Field Crops Summary," [multiple years], USDA, Washington, D.C. Accessible at http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/other/pcubb/#field

This journal is (c) The Royal Society of Chemistry 2001

GM Crops Have Failed to live up to expectations

http://www.i-sis.org/GMcropsfailed.php

"GM crops have higher yields, improved performance, and greatly reduce the use of agrochemicals. Farmers like them because they increase income." Lim Li Ching and Jonathan Matthews debunk these myths,documenting the failures of GM crops around the world.

Lower yields Bt resistance and more pesticides Reduced profits Lessons from the South References

Lower yields

Thousands of controlled trials have shown significantly decreased yields with GM crops.
A study based on 8,200 trials of soya varieties in US universities in1998 [1] reports yield drags between top RR varieties and top conventional varieties averaging 6.7%. In some areas, best conventional varieties produced yields on average 10% higher than RR varieties sold by the same seed companies.
In May 2000, results of a two-year study by Nebraska University's Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources
showed RR soya yielded 6% less than their closest non-GM relatives and 11% less than high-yielding non-GM
varieties [2]. The yield penalty was attributed to the gene insertion process.
Similar yield drags have been reported since 1997.
*In 1997, the University of Purdue found that transgenic soya varieties yielded on average 12-20% less than unmodified varieties grown at the same locations [3].
*Research published in 1998 by the University of Arkansas and Cyanamid revealed reduced profit levels and
lower yields for GM soya and cotton compared with unmodified varieties [3].
*The University of Wisconsin found GM soya yields from the 1998 harvest lower than non-modified varieties in
over 80% of cases in trials across nine US states [4].
*In Iowa, a 1999 survey of reported an average RR-soybean yield reduction of 4% in over 365 fields [5].
*A review of 40 trials of soya varieties in the north central region of the US in 1999 found a mean 4% yield drag
in RR soya [6].
*In the UK, reports of crop trials from the National Institute of Agricultural Botany show yields from GM winter
oilseed rape and sugar beet 5-8% less than high-yielding conventional varieties [7].

In summary, yield losses, not yield gains, are more commonly associated with transgenic crops compared to best
available conventionally-bred cultivars and hybrids [8].
Yield drag in soya is associated with problems in root development,nodulation and nitrogen fixation, particularly
in drought or infertile conditions, as the bacterial symbiont responsible for nitrogen fixation is sensitive to both
Roundup and drought [9]. Furthermore, there is a metabolic cost to expressing herbicide-resistance or the Bt-
endotoxin.
For example, levels of proteins responsible for plant defence responses are depressed following Roundup
application. Although these are eventually restored to normal, pathogens quickly infect the plants in sub-optimal
growing conditions. This forces a diversion of energy to repair damage, resulting in an essentially irreversible tax
on yields.
University of Minnesota economist Vernon W. Ruttan sums it up: "Thus far, biotechnology has not raised the
yield potential of crops" [10].
Yet, an indication of how distorted producer perceptions can be was shown through an opinion poll of 800
farmers, most of whom (53%) chose RR varieties because of perceived higher yields than non-GM varieties.
When actual data from their farms were analysed, exactly the opposite was found [5]. "It is interesting to note...
that increasing crop yields was cited by over half the farmers as the reason for planting GM soya,yet yields were
actually lower".

Bt resistance and more pesticides

The other big claim for GM crops is reductions in pesticide use. In reality, herbicide tolerant and Bt-transgenic
varieties of GM crops are trapping farmers into more reliance on pesticides.

Recently, hundreds of hectares of GM cotton fields in Bulukumba, South Sulawesi, were destroyed by pests[11].
Officials said that there was "nothing to worry about", and a spokesperson from Monsanto (the GM Bollgard
cotton seed supplier) asserted that "they are just larva which
eat the leaves, but will not disrupt cotton production". But local farmers complained, pointing out that the
supplier had claimed the cotton variety was resistant to all kinds of pests.
What happens when GM crops fail to deliver on their promise of pest resistance?
Farmers in Australia are now being advised to spray additional insecticide on Monsanto's GM Bt cotton,
INGARD, "under conditions of reduced INGARD plant efficacy" [12]. The latest official guidance [13] makes it
clear that Bt cotton is in some circumstances failing to control the principal target pest it was introduced for,
Helicoverpa armigera.
Even when GM crops express pest resistance, there is little evidence of reduced pesticide use. This is borne out
by data on transgenic cotton. Although to date one fourth of American cotton is produced with genetically
engineered Bt varieties, no significant reductions in the overall use of insecticides were achieved [14]. In fact,
those insecticides that could be replaced by Bt cotton make up a minor proportion of the insecticides used.

Similarly, with Bt corn, there is no independent evidence of a reduction in overall pesticide applications despite industry claims. Nor is there economic advantage in using Bt corn except in areas with very high pest infestation. Insecticide use on US Bt corn has in fact slightly increased, with insecticide targeting European corn borer rising from about 4% of acres treated in 1995 to about 5% in 2000 [15]. Herbicide use shows a similar picture. Although the cultivation areas of herbicide-tolerant cotton in the US have doubled annually over the past few years, herbicide use has shown little reduction. More revealingly, the sales of total herbicides that can be used with GM cotton have risen drastically since the introduction of herbicide-tolerant cotton [14]. While the Roundup Ready soybean system simplifies weed management, it entails 2-5 times more herbicide use than other weed management systems[1]. Tolerance to Roundup is emerging in several key weed species, contributing to increased chemical use. Unbiased field-level comparisons, drawing on official USDA data, show that RR soybeans require more herbicides than conventional soybeans, despite claims to the contrary [9,15]. In 1998, total herbicide use on RR soybeans was 30% greater on average than on conventional varieties in six US states [9].

Analysis thus shows that RR soybean systems are "not likely to reduce herbicide use or reliance. Claims otherwise are based on incomplete information or analytically flawed comparisons that do not tell the whole story" [1]. And as for RR corn, USDA data suggest that in 2000,the average RR corn acre was treated with about 30% more herbicide than the average non-GM corn acre [15]. Worryingly, research from the University of Alberta has revealed the rapid creation of multiple herbicide resistant canola plants in Canada as a result of pollen flow over significant distances [16]. Cross-hybridizations occurred between a glyphosate-resistant variety and either glufosinate- or imidazolinoneresistant varieties. The evidence pointed to resistant gene movement via pollen flow from one field to another. Unusually, this occurred rapidly and multiple times, such that, through random crossing, certain plants showed triple resistance [17]. One of the triple-resistant plants was found over 550 m from the pollen sources, greatly exceeding the 100-m buffer mandated for seed producers.

Reduced profits

The greater expense of GM seeds and increased herbicide costs can already hit farmers' pockets. Add to these the costs of yield drag and technology fees, and it is bad news for profitability. For example, the added costs for soya producers can be more than 12% of gross income per acre [1]. The Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Iowa State University, interviewed 800 Iowa farmers in 1998 to determine if growing GM crops was more profitable [5]. Random surveys of 62 continuous cornfields, 315 rotated cornfields, and 365 soya fields concluded that the difference in profitability was non-significant for both crops. Thus, the farmers who raised GM crops did not gain any competitive edge. The first farm-level economic analysis of Bt corn, demonstrates less net profit, lower corn prices, and lost corn exports, questioning whether planting GM corn is worth the cost [18]. From 1996-2001, American farmers paid at least $659 million in price premiums to plant Bt corn,while boosting their harvest by only 276 million bushels -worth $567 million in economic gain. The bottom line for farmers is a net loss of $92 million - about $1.31 per acre. Furthermore, the US has foregone about 350 million bushels of corn export sales to the European Union since 1996/97 because the EU doesn't want GMOs. This is thus part of a triple negative for farmers - lost corn exports, lower corn prices and less net profit from Bt corn. In addition, while transgenic cotton varieties may make pest control easier, they are not always worth the added expense when it comes to yield and fibre quality. Research by the University of Arkansas shows that many conventionals are the highest yielding varieties [19].Comparing the economics of a Bollgard/Roundup Ready variety with a conventional variety, "in a year when insect pressure was low the farmer spent about $10 an acre less for insect control with the conventional variety than he did with the more expensive stacked gene variety". And can we put a price tag on the environment? While, research points to the popularity of GM crops with many North American farmers because of their "convenience", a University of Nebraska report shows that farmers are using the technology to needlessly destroy weeds to get a "weed-free" field [2]. The study demonstrates not only reduced profits, but also destruction of biodiversity.

Lessons from the South

We would do well to draw on the experiences of farmers in the South.The viability of non-GM alternatives has been demonstrated in a review of 208 projects/initiatives from 52 countries, adopted by 8.98 million farmers on 29 million hectares of land in Asia, Africa, and Latin America [20]. Using a range of sustainable agriculture technologies -none of which involved GM - farmers have achieved yield increases of 50-100% for rainfed agriculture, and 5-10% for irrigated crops. Low-tech innovations by Southern farmers have boosted production [21].For example, in East Africa, corn faces two major pests - stem borer and Striga, a parasitic plant. By planting a local weed (napier grass) that the stem borer prefers, pests are lured away from the corn into a honey trap - the grass produces a sticky substance that kills stem borer larvae. By planting another weed, Desmodium, between rows of corn,Striga won't grow, as it is adverse to Desmodium. Pesticides are replaced by natural predators, and fertilisers by natural dung, crop wastes and plants that fix nitrogen from the air. What's more, going organic, entailing a restriction in the use of synthetic fertilisers and pesticides while excluding GM technology, could be more beneficial for the economies of developing countries. The FAO has recently urged poor nations to boost exports of organic produce to take advantage of booming markets in developed countries [22]. Sustainable agriculture and organic farming are not a panacea. They however offer alternative approaches to GM technology that have been demonstrated to provide increased yields and more income, while remaining environmentally friendly. No myths about that.

References

[1]Benbrook, C.M. (1999) Evidence of the magnitude and consequences of the Roundup Ready soybean yield drag from university-based varietal trials in 1998, Ag BioTech InfoNet Technical Paper Number 1,

http://www.biotech-info.net/RR_yield_drag_98.pdf

[2]University of Nebraska (2000) Research shows Roundup Ready soybeans yield less, IANR News Service,

http://www.biotech-info.net/Roundup_soybeans_yield_less.html

[3]See Griffiths, M. (1999) The emperor's transgenic clothes; Are GMO lemmings in the US leading all of us over the biotechnology cliff?

http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/gmlemmings.htm

[4]See www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/wisconsinRRsoyatrials98.htm [5]Duffy, M. (1999) 1998 crop survey shows equal returns for GMO,non-GMO crops, http://www.leopold.iastate.edu/news/9-22-99gmorel.html

[6]Oplinger, E.S., M.J. Martinka, and K.A. Schmitz (1999) Performance of transgenetic soybeans - Northern US, presented to
the ASTA Meetings,Chicago, cited in [8].
[7]Reported in Farmers Weekly (UK), 4th December 1998.
[8]Clark, E.A. (1999) '10 reasons why farmers should think twice before growing GE crops,

http://www.plant.uoguelph.ca/faculty/eclark/10reasons.htm

[9]Benbrook, C.M. (2001) Troubled times amid commercial success for Roundup Ready soybeans: glyphosate efficacy is slipping and unstable transgene expression erodes plant defenses and yields, Ag BioTech InfoNet Technical Paper Number 4,

http://www.biotech-info.net/troubledtimes.html

[10]'Economist: Biotech has not made impact yet', Farm Progress, 21 November 2000. [11]See the Jakarta Post.com, Pests attack genetically modified cotton,29 June 2001,

http://www.thejakartapost.com/yesterdaydetail.asp?fileid=20010629.A06

[12]See http://www.biotech-info.net/Aussie_bt_cotton_problems.html [13]Resistance management plan for INGARD Cotton 2001-2002, Transgenic and Insect Management Strategy (TIMS) Committee of the Australian Cotton Growers Research Association,

http://www.cotton.pi.csiro.au/Publicat/Pest/IRMS/irms0102.htm

[14]See Thalmann, P. & V. Kung (2000) No reduction of pesticides use with genetically engineered cotton, for WWF International, http://www.biotech-info.net/WWF_inter_update.pdf ; and Thalmann, P. & V.Kung (2000) Transgenic cotton: Are there

benefits for conservation? A case study of GMOs in agriculture, with special emphasis on freshwater

http://www.panda.org/resources/publications/water/cotton/transgenic.html

[15]Benbrook, C.M. (2001) Do GM crops mean less pesticide use?,Pesticide Outlook, October 2001.
[16]Hall, L.M., J. Huffman, and K. Topinka (2000), Pollen flow between herbicide tolerant canola (Brassica napus), Weed
Science Society of America Abstracts 40: 48,

http://www.mindfully.org/GE/Multiple-Resistant-Volunteers.htm

[17]Westwood, J. (2001) Cross-pollination leads to triple herbicide resistance, ISB News Report [extract only] March 2001, covering Agricultural and Environmental Biotechnology Developments,

http://www.biotech-info.net/cross_pollination2.html

[18]See Benbrook, C.M. (2001) When does it pay to plant Bt corn:farm-level economic impacts of Bt corn, 1996-2001 http://www.gefoodalert.org/library/admin/uploadedfiles/When_Does_It_Pay_To_Plant_Bt_Corn.pdf">www.gefoodalert.org/ library/admin/uploadedfiles/When_Does_It_Pay_To_Plant_Bt_Corn.pdf</A> or http://www.biotech-info.net/Bt_corn_FF_final.pdf; press release from the Institute of Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP), http://www.gefoodalert.org/library/admin/uploadedfiles/Benbrook_Bt_Press_Release.doc

[19]See Conventional vs. transgenic cotton, edited by AgWeb.com Editors,12/3/2001,

http://www.agweb.com/news_show_news_article.asp?articleID=81926&newscat=GN

[20]Pretty, J. and R. Hine (2001) Reducing food poverty with sustainable agriculture: a summary of new evidence, Occasional Paper 2001-2, Centre for Environment and Society, University of Essex,

http://www2.essex.ac.uk/ces/ResearchProgrammes/CESOccasionalPapers/SAFErepSUBHEADS.htm

[21]Pearce, F. (2001) An ordinary miracle, New Scientist, Vol. 169,Issue 2276, p. 16, 3 February 2001.

[22]Brough, D. (2001) FAO urges poor nations to boost organic food sales, Reuters, 4 December 2001,

http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13562/story.htm

The Institute of Science in Society. PO Box 32097, London NW1 OXR Telephone: 44-20-8731-7714 44-20-7383-3376 44-20-7272-5636

ISIS WEBSITE MATERIAL MAY BE REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT PERMISSION, ON CONDITION THAT IT IS ACCREDITED ACCORDINGLY AND CONTAINS A LINK TO:

http://www.i-sis.org/

Open Letter from World Scientists to All Governments 1.9.2000

(see http://www.i-sis.org/)

Summary

We, the undersigned scientists, call for the immediate suspension of all environmental releases of GM crops and products, both commercially and in open field trials, for at least 5 years; for patents on living processes, organisms, seeds, cell lines and genes to be revoked and banned; and for a comprehensive public enquiry into the future of agriculture and food security for all.

Patents on life-forms and living processes should be banned because they threaten food security, sanction biopiracy of indigenous knowledge and genetic resources, violate basic human rights and dignity, compromise healthcare, impede medical and scientific research and are against the welfare of animals. GM crops offer no benefits to farmers or consumers. Instead, many problems have been identified, including yield drag, increased herbicide use, erratic performance, and poor economic returns to farmers. GM crops also intensify corporate monopoly on food, which is driving family farmers to destitution, and preventing the essential shift to sustainable agriculture that can guarantee food security and health around the world. The hazards of GMOs to biodiversity and human and animal health are now acknowledged by sources within the UK and US Governments. Particularly serious consequences are associated with the potential for horizontal gene transfer. These include the spread of antibiotic resistance marker genes that would render infectious diseases untreatable, the generation of new viruses and bacteria that cause diseases, and harmful mutations which may lead to cancer. In the Cartegena Biosafety Protocol negotiated in Montreal in January 2000, more than 130 governments have pledged to implement the precautionary principle and to ensure that biosafety legislations at the national and international levels take precedence over trade and financial agreements at the World Trade Organization. Successive studies have documented the productivity and the social and environmental benefits of sustainable, low-input and organic farming in both North and South. They offer the only practical way of restoring agricultural land degraded by conventional agronomic practices, and empower small family farmers to combat poverty and hunger.

We urge the US Congress to reject GM crops as both hazardous and contrary to the interest of family farmers; and to support research and development of sustainable agricultural methods that can truly benefit family farmers all over the world. We, the undersigned scientists, call for the immediate suspension of all environmental releases of GM crops and products, both commercially and in open field trials, for at least 5 years; for patents on living processes, organisms, seeds, cell lines and genes to be revoked and banned; and for a comprehensive public enquiry into the future of agriculture and food security for all.

1 Patents on life-forms and living processes should be banned because they threaten food security, sanction biopiracy of indigenous knowledge and genetic resources, violate basic human rights and dignity, compromise healthcare, impede medical and scientific research and are against the welfare of animals(1). Life-forms such as organisms, seeds, cell lines and genes are discoveries and hence not patentable. Current GM techniques which exploit living processes are unreliable, uncontrollable and unpredictable, and do not qualify as inventions. Furthermore, those techniques are inherently unsafe, as are many GM organisms and products.

2. It is becoming increasingly clear that current GM crops are neither needed nor beneficial. They are a dangerous diversion preventing the essential shift to sustainable agricultural practices that can provide food security and health around the world.

3. Two simple characteristics account for the nearly 40 million hectares of GM crops planted in 1999(2). The majority (71%) are tolerant to broad-spectrum herbicides, with companies engineering plants to be tolerant to their own brand of herbicide, while most of the rest are engineered with bt-toxins to kill insect pests. A university-based survey of 8200 field trials of the most widely grown GM crops, herbicide-tolerant soya beans - revealed that they yield 6.7% less and required two to five times more herbicides than non-GM varieties(3). This has been confirmed by a more recent study in the University of Nebraska(4). Yet other problems have been identified: erratic performance, disease susceptibility(5), fruit abortion(6) and poor economic returns to farmers(7).

4. According to the UN food programme, there is enough food to feed the world one and a half times over. While world population has grown 90% in the past 40 years, the amount of food per capita has increased by 25%, yet one billion are hungry(8). A new FAO report confirms that there will be enough or more than enough food to meet global demands without taking into account any yield improvementsthat might result from GM crops well into 2030 (9). It is on account of increasing corporate monopoly operating under the globalised economy that the poor are getting poorer and hungrier(10). Family farmers around the world have been driven to destitution and suicide, and for the same reasons. Between 1993 and 1997 the number of mid-sized farms in the US dropped by 74,440(11), and farmers are now receiving below the average cost of production for their produce(12). The farming population in France and Germany fell by 50% since 1978(13). In the UK, 20 000 farming jobs were lost in the past year alone, and the Prime Minister has announced a £200m aid package(14). Four corporations control 85% of the world trade in cereals at the end of 1999(15). Mergers and acquisitions are continuing.

5. The new patents on seeds intensify corporate monopoly by preventing farmers from saving and replanting seeds, which is what most farmers still do in the Third World. In order to protect their patents, corporations are continuing to develop terminator technologies that genetic engineer harvested seeds not to germinate, despite worldwide opposition from farmers and civil society at large(16).

6. Christian Aid, a major charity working with the Third World, concluded that GM crops will cause unemployment, exacerbate Third World debt, threaten sustainable farming systems and damage the environment. It predicts famine for the poorest countries(17). African Governments condemned Monsanto's claim that GMOs are needed to feed the hungry of the world: "We..strongly object that the image of the poor and hungry from our countries is being used by giant multinational corporations to push a technology that is neither safe, environmentally friendly, nor economically beneficial to us… we believe it will destroy the diversity, the local knowledge and the sustainable agricultural systems that our farmers have developed for millennia and … undermine our capacity to feed ourselves.(18)" A message from the Peasant movement of the Philippines to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) of the industrialized countries stated, "The entry of GMOs will certainly intensify landlessness, hunger and injustice.(19)"

7. A coalition of family farming groups in the US have issued a comprehensive list of demands, including ban on ownership of all life-forms; suspension of sales, environmental releases and further approvals of all GM crops and products pending an independent, comprehensive assessment of the social, environmental, health and economic impacts; and for corporations to be made liable for all damages arising from GM crops and products to livestock, human beings and the environment(20). They also demand a moratorium on all corporate mergers and acquisitions, on farm closures, and an end to policies that serve big agribusiness interests at the expense of family farmers, taxpayers and the environment(21). They have mounted a lawsuit against Monsanto and nine other corporations for monopolistic practices and for foisting GM crops on farmers without adequate safety and environmental impact assessments(22).

8. Some of the hazards of GM crops are openly acknowledged by the UK and US Governments. UK Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) has admitted that the transfer of GM crops and pollen beyond the planted fields is unavoidable(23), and this has already resulted in herbicide-tolerant weeds(24). An interim report on UK Government-sponsored field trials confirmed hybridisation between adjacent plots of different herbicide tolerant GM oilseed rape varieties, which gave rise to hybrids tolerant to multiple herbicides. In addition, GM oilseed rape and their hybrids were found as volunteers in subsequent wheat and barley crops, which had to be controlled by standard herbicides(25). Bt-resistant insect pests have evolved in response to the continuous presence of the toxins in GM plants throughout the growing season, and the US Environment Protection Agency is recommending farmers to plant up to 40% non-GM crops in order to create refugia for non-resistant insect pests(26).

9. The threats to biodiversity from major GM crops already commercialized are becoming increasingly clear. The broad-spectrum herbicides used with herbicide-tolerant GM crops decimate wild plant species indiscriminately, they are also toxic to animals. Glufosinate causes birth defects in mammals(27), and glyphosate is linked to non-Hodgkin lymphoma(28). GM crops with bt-toxins kill beneficial insects such as bees(29) and lacewings(30), and pollen from bt-corn is found to be lethal to monarch butterflies(31) as well as swallowtails(32). Bt-toxin is exuded from roots of bt-plants in the rhizosphere, where it rapidly binds to soil particles and become protected from degradation. As the toxin is present in an activated, non-selective form, both target and non-target species in the soil will be affected(33), with knock on effects on species above ground.

10. Products resulting from genetically modified organisms can also be hazardous. For example, a batch of tryptophan produced by GM microorganisms was associated with at least 37 deaths and 1500 serious illnesses (34). Genetically modified Bovine Growth Hormone, injected into cows in order to increase milk yield, not only causes excessive suffering and illnesses for the cows but increases IGF-1 in the milk, which is linked to breast and prostate cancers in humans(35). It is vital for the public to be protected from all GM products, and not only those containing transgenic DNA or protein. That is because the process of genetic modification itself, at least in the form currently practised, is inherently unsafe.

11. Secret memoranda of US Food and Drug Administration revealed that it ignored the warnings of its own scientists that genetic engineering is a new departure and introduces new risks. Furthermore, the first GM crop to be commercialized - the Flavr Savr tomato - did not pass the required toxicological tests(36). Since then, no comprehensive scientific safety testing had been done until Dr. Arpad Pusztai and his collaborators in the UK raised serious concerns over the safety of the GM potatoes they were testing. They conclude that a significant part of the toxic effect may be due to the "[gene] construct or the genetic transformation (or both)" used in making the GM plants(37).

12. The safety of GM foods was openly disputed by Professor Bevan Moseley, molecular geneticist and current Chair of the Working Group on Novel Foods in the European Union's Scientific Committee on Food(38). He drew attention to unforseen effects inherent to the technology, emphasizing that the next generation of GM foods - the so-called 'neutraceuticals' or 'functional foods', such as vitamin A 'enriched' rice - will pose even greater health risks because of the increased complexity of the gene constructs.

13. Genetic engineering introduces new genes and new combinations of genetic material constructed in the laboratory into crops, livestock and microorganisms(39). The artificial constructs are derived from the genetic material of pathogenic viruses and other genetic parasites, as well as bacteria and other organisms, and include genes coding for antibiotic resistance. The constructs are designed to break down species barriers and to overcome mechanisms that prevent foreign genetic material from inserting into genomes. Most of them have never existed in nature in the course of billions of years of evolution.

14. These constructs are introduced into cells by invasive methods that lead to random insertion of the foreign genes into the genomes (the totality of all the genetic material of a cell or organism). This gives rise to unpredictable, random effects, including gross abnormalities in animals and unexpected toxins and allergens in food crops.

15. One construct common to practically all GM crops already commercialized or undergoing field trials involves a gene-switch (promoter) from the cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV) spliced next to the foreign gene (transgene) to make it over-express continuously(40). This CaMV promoter is active in all plants, in yeast, algae and E. coli. We recently discovered that it is even active in amphibian egg(41) and human cell extract(42). It has a modular structure, and is interchangeable, in part, or in whole with promoters of other viruses to give infectious viruses. It also has a 'recombination hotspot' where it is prone to break and join up with other genetic material(43).

16. For these and other reasons, transgenic DNA - the totality of artificial constructs transferred into the GMO -may be more unstable and prone to transfer again to unrelated species; potentially to all species interacting with the GMO(44).

17. The instability of transgenic DNA in GM plants is well-known(45). GM genes are often silenced, but loss of part or all of the transgenic DNA also occurs, even during later generations of propagation(46). We are aware of no published evidence for the long term stability of GM inserts in terms of structure or location in the plant genome in any of the GM lines already commercialized or undergoing field trials.

18. The potential hazards of horizontal transfer of GM genes include the spread of antibiotic resistance genes to pathogens, the generation of new viruses and bacteria that cause disease and mutations due to the random insertion of foreign DNA, some of which may lead to cancer in mammalian cells(47). The ability of the CaMV promoter to function in all species including human beings is particularly relevant to the potential hazards of horizontal gene transfer.

19. The possibility for naked or free DNA to be taken up by mammalian cells is explicitly mentioned in the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) draft guidance to industry on antibiotic resistance marker genes(48). In commenting on the FDA's document, the UK MAFF pointed out that transgenic DNA may be transferred not just by ingestion, but by contact with plant dust and air-borne pollen during farm work and food processing(49). This warning is all the more significant with the recent report from Jena University in Germany that field experiments indicated GM genes may have transferred via GM pollen to the bacteria and yeasts in the gut of bee larvae(50).

20. Plant DNA is not readily degraded during most commercial food processing(51). Procedures such as grinding and milling left grain DNA largely intact, as did heat-treatment at 90deg.C. Plants placed in silage showed little degradation of DNA, and a special UK MAFF report advises against using GM plants or plant waste in animal feed.

21. The human mouth contains bacteria that have been shown to take up and express naked DNA containing antibiotic resistance genes, and similar transformable bacteria are present in the respiratory tracts(52).

22. Antibiotic resistance marker genes from GM plants have been found to transfer horizontally to soil bacteria and fungi in the laboratory(53). Field monitoring revealed that GM sugar beet DNA persisted in the soil for up to two years after the GM crop was planted. And there is evidence suggesting that parts of the transgenic DNA have transferred horizontally to bacteria in the soil(54).

23. Recent research in gene therapy and nucleic acid (both DNA and RNA) vaccines leaves little doubt that naked/free nucleic acids can be taken up, and in some cases, incorporated into the genome of all mammalian cells including those of human beings. Adverse effects already observed include acute toxic shock, delayed immunological reactions and autoimmune reactions(55).

24. The British Medical Association, in their interim report (published May, 1999), called for an indefinite moratorium on the releases of GMOs pending further research on new allergies, the spread of antibiotic resistance genes and the effects of transgenic DNA.

25. In the Cartegena Biosafety Protocol successfully negotiated in Montreal in January, 2000, more than 130 governments have agreed to implement the precautionary principle, and to ensure that biosafety legislations at the national and international levels take precedence over trade and financial agreements at the WTO. Similarly, delegates to the Codex Alimentarius Commission Conference in Chiba Japan, March 2000, have agreed to prepare stringent regulatory procedures for GM foods that include pre-market evaluation, long-term monitoring for health impacts, tests for genetic stability, toxins, allergens and other unintended effects(56). The Cartegena Biosafety Protocol has now been signed by 68 Governments in Nairobi in May, 2000.

26. We urge all Governments to take proper account of the now substantial scientific evidence of actual and suspected hazards arising from GM technology and many of its products, and to impose an immediate moratorium on further environmental releases, including open field trials, in accordance with the precautionary principle as well as sound science.

27. Successive studies have documented the productivity and sustainability of family farming in the Third World as well as in the North(57). Evidence from both North and South indicates that small farms are more productive, more efficient and contribute more to economic development than large farms. Small farmers also tend to make better stewards of natural resources, conserving biodiversity and safeguarding the sustainability of agricultural production(58). Cuba responded to the economic crisis precipitated by the break up of the Soviet Bloc in 1989 by converting from conventional large scale, high input monoculture to small organic and semi-organic farming, thereby doubling food production with half the previous input(59).

28. Agroecological approaches hold great promise for sustainable agriculture in developing countries, in combining local farming knowledge and techniques adjusted to local conditions with contemporary western scientific knowledge(60). The yields have doubled and tripled and are still increasing. An estimated 12.5 million hectares worldwide are already successfully farmed in this way(61). It is environmentally sound and affordable for small farmers. It recovers farming land marginalized by conventional intensive agriculture. It offers the only practical way of restoring agricultural land degraded by conventional agronomic practices. Most of all, it empowers small family farmers to combat poverty and hunger.

29. We urge all Governments to reject GM crops on grounds that they are both hazardous and contrary to ecologically sustainable use of resources. Instead they should support research and development of sustainable agricultural methods that can truly benefit family farmers the world over.

For references (the figures in brackets) and scientists names see web site: http://www.i-sis.org/

Glyphosate resistance is showing a worldwide rise

Farmers Weekly 23 November 2001

New Products, new advice and new problems were debated in detail at last week's International "Weeds Conference" staged by the British Crop Protection Council in Brighton. Over the following four pages Charles Abel, Andrew Blake and Andrew Swallow report the highlights. Resistance to glyphosate (Roundup) is emerging all around the world, potentially jeopardising the 2.5 billion dollar market for genetically modified herbicide tolerant crops. The latest discovery is glyphosate resistant ryegrass in South African vineyards where growers have used Roundup for 23 years.

"Monsanto is very sensitive because half the soya and maize is in GM herbicide tolerant varieties, creating a market worth $2.5b," said Andrew Cairns, of Natal University, Pietermaitzburg.

Resistance has also been found in ryegrass in New South Wales and Western Australia, a grass-weed in Malaysia, a broad-leaved weed in Delaware and ryegrass in California. In one US case, the repeat use of Roundup in GM herbicide tolerant maize has been blamed for the development of resistant weeds.

"I agree with the technology, it's a very good idea," said Prof Cairns. "But they need to have the stewardship in place to prevent this becoming a bigger issue."

Resistance problems are predicted to increase but a simple change in herbicide use should offer a solution, said Michael Owen of Iowa State University. "I don't see that the shifts on establishment of resistant populations is going to be a big issue." Using an alternative mode of action should solve the problem, although the number of new modes of action becoming availableis decreasing, he said.

Over-use of glyphosate by growers is to blame for the rapid development of resistance in common waterhemp and horseweed. One or two applications would often be enough to give economic control, but growers frequently use three or even four applications to keep fields cosmetically clean, said Mr Owen. That puts a strong selection pressure on the weed population. In one case in the eastern corn belt, horseweed became resistant to glyphosate after just three years of growing glyphosate tolerant crops. A desire to show spotlessly clean fields to non-farming landlords adds to the problem, he said.

"Growers do not look at the economics of weed escapes. They view GM crops as an excellent chance to go out late season with the sprayer just to clean the crop up. This aesthetic weed management is a real problem for us."

University researchers find fungi buildup in glyphosate-treated soybean fields

Columbia, Mo. A four-year study by University of Missouri researchers has found that Roundup herbicide applications change the microbial composition of soil in the field. They observed increases in fungi on the roots and in the soil around the roots of soybean plants, with "potential implications in future management."

"Experiments conducted in 1997 through 2000 at two Missouri locations revealed that Roundup Ready soybeans receiving glyphosate at recommended rates had significantly higher incidence of Fusarium on roots within one week of applica-tion compared with soybeans that did not receive glyphosate², reported Pat Donald, MU plant pathologist, and Robert Kremer, an MU soil scientist and USDA Agricultural Research Service microbiologist.

In research plots at MU Delta Research Center in Portageville, Mo., and at MU Bradford Farm near Columbia, the scientists detected major colonization by several distinct types of the fungus in the glyphosate-treated fields. "Although soil Fusarium populations varied among locations, glyphosate significantly increased numbers at each location." "There is a natural ebb and flow, but with Roundup Ready beans treated with Roundup, there was always a spike in the levels of the fungi studied," Kremer said.

Fusarium fungi are almost always found in soybean fields, but at elevated levels some can become pathogenic on susceptible plants and lead to lost yields through such diseases as Osudden death syndrome¹ [SDS] and other root rots, Donald said.

Kremer said studies of ecological impact from transgenic plants should include an analysis of effects on the microbial makeup of the soil. "Right now, that's an ecological assessment that hasn't received much attention. The tests are often limited to small soil insects and earth-worms. We think it's been an oversight." "All of the ecological assessment is above ground," Donald said, adding that such assessments should measure plants' and products' impact on the soil system, "especially if they're going to potentially increase pathogens."

Initially, the researchers believed the increased Fusarium through glyphosate application could provide a biological control for soybean cyst nematode as well as suppressing weed growth. "We thought it might be a double whammy," Donald said. "It didn't work out that way."

She and Kremer emphasized that soybean yields in their experiments were not affected by application of glyphosate as opposed to conventional herbicide treatments. However, "potential yield impacts in subsequent seasons due to high soil Fusarium populations, resulting from continued use of glyphosate, needs further investigation."

Kremer said the study shows the fungi "build up over the growing season. We need to look at it more and see whether there's a buildup of the organism from year to year." He noted that more than half of Missouri soybeans are Roundup Ready. "When you think about it, you have to wonder what's happening in the soil." Donald said soil micro-organisms such as fungi and nematodes have both detri-mental and beneficial associations with crops and the environment. "We need to have all the information that we can."

An abstract of the study can be found at the American Society of Agronomy website:

http://www.asa-cssa-sssa-org/cgi-bin/abstract_database_search.cgi?objective=

Kremer Source: Robert Kremer (573) 882-6408; Pat Donald (573) 882-2716

Bt Corn Linked to Hog Breeding Problems

Submitted by Jim Riddle Rt. 3 Box 162C Winona, MN 55987 May 20, 2002

In its April 29, 2002, edition, the Iowa Farm Bureau Spokesman contained an alarming story on sow breeding problems related to the feeding of genetically engineered Bt corn.

According to the article, Shelby County, Iowa, farmer Jerry Rosman was alarmed when farrowing rates in his sow herd plummeted nearly 80 percent. Rosman, who has nearly 30 years of farrowing experience, checked and double-checked all of the usual suspect causes. He tested for diseases, verified his artificial insemination methods were being properly implemented, and poured over his nutritional program. But he found nothing out of the ordinary.

Eventually, Rosman became aware of four other producers within a 15-mile radius of his farm whose herds had nearly identical pseudopregnancies. The herds had different management styles, different breeding methods and different swine genetics. A common denominator, Rosman says, is that all of the operations fed their herds the same Bt corn hybrids.

Laboratory tests revealed their corn contained high levels of Fusarium mold. Rosman says researchers typed the Fusarium down to four strains, and two of them (Fusarium subglutinans and Fusarium monlliforme) were consistent in all of the producers' samples.

One of the producers subsequently switched back to regular non-Bt corn, and pseudopregnancy is no longer a problem within that herd. Rosman believes the problem manifested itself on his farm because he planted 100 percent of the same brand of genetically engineered Bt seed corn and fed 100 percent of that corn to his livestock. According to the article, Rosman isn't sure whether or not he'll be planting any corn on his land this year. An agronomist has told him that a regular rotation of corn and soybeans might not get rid of whatever gene has contaminated his corn ground.

In a follow up article on May 13, 2002, the Iowa Farm Bureau Spokesman reported that shortly after the story detailing Rosman s situation appeared, he was flooded with phone calls. It hadn t even hit the mailboxes and the phone started ringing, Rosman says.

By late last week he had received calls from 12 other producers from various parts of the state detailing situations very much like his own. The calls primarily came from smaller producers who, like Rosman, feed their own corn and noticed a sharp decline in farrowing rates recently. The Rosman article sparked the interest of Norm Smith, who farms east of Winterset, Iowa. Smith says he started experiencing breeding problems within a few weeks of feeding the new corn hybrids he planted for the first time last spring.

‘I started feeding Bt corn in late September, and within 30 days I wasn’t getting anything bred’, Smith said, adding that his brother encountered similar problems.

The Spokesman articles illustrate the fact that genetically engineered crops have been rushed to market without proper testing. There have been no mandatory tests on the long term effects of these crops on livestock or human health. For example, the EPA, which regulates Bt corn, requires no tests to determine how the crop impacts the reproductive systems of the animals that eat it.

Genetically engineered materials, such as products manufactured from Bt corn, are now commonly found in conventional foods. Due to a political decision made in 1992 by the Bush/Quayle administration, genetically engineered foods are not required to be segregated or labeled. Anyone who eats foods containing conventional corn, soy, canola, and/or cottonseed products is an unwitting guinea pig in a vast, uncharted ecological experiment. From: "Jim Riddle" <jriddle@luminet.net>

Modified Crops Could Lead To "Superweeds," Study Suggests

nationalgeographic.com - January 26, 2002

Genetic engineering holds great potential payoffs for farmers and consumers by making crops resistant to pests, diseases, and even chemicals used to kill surrounding weeds. But new research raises concerns that altering crops to withstand such threats may pose new risks from none other than the weeds themselves.

The threat comes from the weeds' ability to acquire genes from the neighboring agricultural crops. Researchers found that when a weed cross-breeds with a farm-cultivated relative and thus acquires new genetic traits possibly including artificial genes engineered to make the crop hardier the hybrid weed can pass along those traits to future generations.

"The result may be very hardy, hard-to-kill weeds," said Allison Snow, a plant ecologist at Ohio State University in Columbus who conducted the experiments over the past six years along with two colleagues. They presented their results last week at the annual meeting of the Ecological Society of America in Madison, Wisconsin. The findings suggest that genetic engineering done with the aim of improving crops giving them new genetic traits such as resistance to herbicides or pests could ultimately have unintended and harmful consequences for the crops if weeds acquire the same trait and use it to out-compete the crops. "Gene movement from crops to their wild relatives is an ongoing process that can be ultimately harmful to crops," said Snow.

Long-Term Legacy

The scientists conducted the experiments at the University of Michigan Biological Station in Pellston. They used two species of radish: one a common edible radish, the other a wild relative. The wild version is a tenacious weed that reproduces more readily than the crop and can take over agricultural fields if not controlled. The scientists began by cross-breeding the cultivated radishes and the weedy radishes to produce hybrid, weed-like radishes. Then they designed studies to measure and compare the reproductive success and other traits of the hybrid and non-hybrid radishes.

The original crop radishes used to produce the hybrids had not been genetically engineered. But the scientists wanted to monitor the effects of the "borrowed" genes in weed populations over subsequent generations. They did this by selecting several genetic traits in the cultivated radishes, including flower color and fertility, to serve as "markers" indicating thespread of crop genes into the hybrid population.

When the two groups of plants were grown in pots under the same conditions, the non-hybrid radishes had more seeds and reproduced more than the hybrid plants, especially in the first generation of the experiment. Nonetheless, the scientists found that traits acquired from the crop radishes, such as their flower color, showed up in subsequent generations of hybrids. "Even though the effects of delayed flowering and reduced fertility inhibited the movement of certain crop traits to later generations, we did find evidence of crop genes in every generation," Snow said.

A second experiment, conducted in field plots, supported these findings and will be published soon.

Need for Caution

The results of the experiments challenge a common belief that hybrids gradually die out over several generations, Snow explained. "There has been an assumption that [crop] genes wouldn't persist in crop-weed hybrids" because hybrids are thought to be less successful at reproducing, she said. Not so, Snow concluded after reviewing her team's data: Hybrid wild radishes survived in all six generations that were grown since the study began.

Although the genetic traits the scientists monitored were natural and not genetically engineered, the findings nonetheless suggest that artificial improvements introduced into crops through genetic engineering could spread to weeds and become permanent traits of the weed population. So strengthened, the weeds may pose a serious risk to the long-term health of agricultural crops. The danger exists in a number of crop plants including canola, rice, sunflower, sorghum, squash, and carrots that are closely related to weeds with which they compete.

Snow is concerned that the transfer of genes from crops to related weeds could rapidly render many herbicides ineffectual. That situation, she said, would be much like bacterial diseases acquiring resistance to antibiotics. Because plant hybrids arise in a single generation, however, it could happen much more quickly.

"Modern agriculture is heavily dependent on herbicides," she said, "so people will notice when those don't work anymore."

originated: lhopwood@earthlink.net

Announcing the availability of the video: "Genetically Engineered Seeds of Controversy".

This video is a taping of the event, "Genetically Engineered Seeds of Controversy: Biotech Bullies Threaten Farmer and Consumer Rights", held Oct, 10, 2001, in Austin, TX.

The keynote speakers were Jim Hightower, former Texas Agricultural Commissioner, and farmers Percy Schmeiser and Rodney Nelson.

For information about the video and/or to obtain a copy, please email the event organizers at: <info@saynotogmos.org>

Canadian organic farmers sue Monsanto on GM crops

Story Date: 11/1/2002

WINNIPEG, Manitoba - A group of Canadian organic farmers launched a lawsuit against biotech giants Monsanto Co. and Aventis SA on Thursday seeking compensation for damages caused by genetically modified canola they say is blowing into their fields. "Organic farmers in Saskatchewan have said that the time has come for this legal challenge and we're here today to let the world know that," Marc Loiselle, a board member of the Saskatchewan Organic Directorate (SOD), a group representing organic producers in the province, told a news conference. "We claim that the two companies, Monsanto and Aventis, are responsible for GE (genetically engineered) contamination on multiple grounds and we're confident that this will be proven in the court of law," Loiselle told reporters in Saskatoon. Two organic farmers filed the class action lawsuit in Saskatoon court on behalf of all organic farmers in the province, the heart of Canada's bread basket. The legal action is also aimed at halting plans to introduce transgenic wheat in the region. There are about 1,000 organic growers in Saskatchewan, whose farms represent about 1 million acres (405,700 hectares). SOD alleges that genetically engineered crops threaten the environment and their industry. "Any kind of science, whatever it is, if it's infringing on our rights, they don't have a right to do it, said Arnold Taylor, an organic grower and president of SOD. The amount of compensation being sought has yet to be determined, but Taylor estimates it will be "in the millions." Organizations that certify crops as organic have zero tolerance for genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the seed supply. They also prohibit organic farmers from applying most crop chemicals. Instead, organic farmers rely on crop rotation, which includes the staggered planting of canola and wheat, to control weeds. SWITCH TO TRANSGENIC CANOLA Many farmers across Western Canada have switched to transgenic canola since GM varieties were introduced in Canada in the mid 1990s, citing better weed control and yields. Today, about 60 percent of the canola grown in Saskatchewan is genetically modified to resist weeds. Canola, the Canadian variant of rapeseed, is used mainly to produce processed food ingredients, cooking oils, and livestock feed. Canada is the world's largest canola exporter. Organic producers say that pollen from GM canola, which is patented by Monsanto and Aventis, is blowing on to their fields, contaminating their crops and their seed supply, and driving away premium-paying customers, most of whom are in Europe. "They're trying to make these companies pay for their losses that were sustained by them from having removed a crop, an entire crop from their selection of crops," Terry Zakreski, the farmers' lawyer told Reuters, noting that this is believed to be the first lawsuit of its kind in Canada. "They want to stop them from introducing another crop that could economically destroy them if it's allowed to happen," said Zakreski. Agricultural sciences company, Monsanto, which produces Roundup Ready canola, one of the most widely grown GM varieties, has recently conducted field trials across Western Canada to develop genetically modified Roundup Ready wheat. The plants are genetically modified to be unaffected when the herbicide Roundup in used on the fields to control weeds. "To me it's just a matter of continuing to give farmers choice in terms of what they grow. And farmers make choices whether they grow organic or conventional or transgenic, and they make those choices based on what works for them on their farm," said Monsanto Canada spokeswoman Trish Jordan. Monsanto has said that it will not commercially release GM wheat until concerns about segregation and market acceptance are addressed. SOD announced its intention to sue the biotech companies last year, but said new legislation in Saskatchewan permitting class action lawsuits paved the way for Thursday's announcement.

Story by Kanina Holmes
Story Date: 11/1/2002
national farmers union (of Canada) in union is strength

NFU Policy on Genetically Modified (GM) Foods Preamble

The NFU believes that all Canadians--farmers and non-farmers alike--must engage in an informed debate on the genetic modification of food. Citizens must examine genetically modified (GM) food in the largest possible social, historical, environmental, economic, and ethical context. After that debate, citizens--not the corporations that promote these products--must decide whether to accept or reject GM food. Squeezed by falling incomes, farmers look to technologies that claim higher returns or reduced costs. Over the past decades, however, farmers have embraced a wide range of technologies, only to watch net farm incomes fall. Between 1974 and 2000, gross farm income tripled. Net farm income, however, fell. Input suppliers were able to capture 100% of farmers' increased gross returns. Because fertilizers, chemicals, and other technologies failed to fulfill their promises of farm profitability, many farmers rightly question the economic benefits of genetically modifying crops and livestock. While the benefits are questionable, risks and costs are real. Consumers are rejecting GM foods. Markets in Europe, Japan, and elsewhere are closing and domestic markets are likewise threatened. This is driving prices down. Closing markets and falling prices threaten to overwhelm any small, short-term economic benefits that GM crops or livestock may offer. Further, the proliferation of some GM crops has effectively deprived many organic farmers of the option to grow those crops. Further, GM seeds and livestock give corporations increased control over family farms. Any initial economic benefits will be quickly outweighed as farmers are drawn further under corporate control. More than any previous technology--such as fertilizers or tractors--patented seeds sold through contract and multi-page technology use agreements clearly erode farmers' autonomy. Turning to human health, there has not been a systematic, scientific investigation of the health effects of GM foods. The unscientific assumption of "substantial equivalence" is insufficient reason to forgo comprehensive, independent health testing. There are also many unanswered questions about the environmental risks of GM crops and livestock. Genetic modification threatens to unbalance the biosphere, create "super-weeds," endanger beneficial insects, and erode bio-diversity. Bio-diversity is a vital source of raw materials for agriculture and an essential component of environmental well-being. The NFU policy on GM foods recognizes that almost all of the questions surrounding this technology remain unanswered. The policy attempts to introduce precaution and prudence into a process of GM food proliferation driven by profit. Because this technology has the potential to threaten the environment, human health, and the economic wellbeing of farmers, Canadians should debate and study before we plant and eat.

General policy and action plan

1. The federal government must impose a moratorium on the production, importation, distribution, and sale of GM food until questions regarding consumer acceptance, human health, environmental implications, technology ownership, and farmer profitability are answered to the satisfaction of the majority of Canadians.

2. Until the federal government respects the wishes of the people and introduces a moratorium, the following interim measures will help protect farmers and other citizens.

Ownership and control of GM food technology

3. All genetic resources and GM technology must be subject to democratic control, collective ownership, and not-for-profit distribution.

4. Citizens through their governments, not corporations, must control genetic research and the development of GM products.

5. Public money directed to agricultural research must serve the interests of Canadians. Such money must be spent on research into sustainable systems of agriculture which improve the nutrition and safety of food, the health of the environment, and the incomes of farmers.

6. "Terminator", "Traitor", and similar Genetic Use Restriction technologies, along with the WTO's Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) agreement, restrict farmers' right to save, trade, and reuse seed. Thus, they are unacceptable.

7. Canada must work to end the export of GM foods and seeds to countries which lack adequate regulation, safety, and inspection regimes to deal with such imports.

Genetic Pollution

8. It is unreasonable to allow genetic modification companies to privately reap profits and not require that they also assume all costs. Genetic pollution is one such cost. Companies producing genetically modified seeds admit that some plants can "outcross" in an uncontrolled fashion. Genetic pollution seriously erodes the incomes of organic farmers and those who do not use GM seeds. Government must hold genetic modification companies accountable for the costs their products create for other farmers and the general public.

9. The federal government must compel companies which own patents on GM seeds or livestock to set up contingency funds to compensate for product liability and legislate efficient and accessible mechanisms to enable liability claims to be effectively pursued.

Markets and consumer acceptance

10. Food products which contain GM ingredients must be subject to clear, consistent, mandatory labelling.

11. Labelling, information, and ready access to alternatives are the three essential elements of consumers' right to choose. Consumers and farmers must have access to non-GM food alternatives.

12. The federal government must establish and enforce strict and effective segregation programs for cropping, transportation, storage, and marketing of GM crops.

13. No GM crops, livestock, or food products should be licensed or introduced until major domestic and international customers have indicated their acceptance.

GM CROPS: WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW

INTRODUCTION