Safeguards that exist under current GM food laws must be maintained to protect public health: Professor Michael Antoniou

In an under-researched and much-criticised article urging acceptance of genetically modified foods, Camilla Cavendish, formerly David Cameron’s adviser, asks:

“Can local wild plants or crops become cross-contaminated?”

As early as 2002 cross-contamination was widely publicised – see the New Scientist and a 2012 BBC report, headed by the following video & photograph:

“So-called ‘superweeds’ result from accidental crosses between neighbouring crops that have been genetically modified to resist different herbicides. Farmers are often forced to resort to older stronger herbicides to remove them.

“Brian Johnson, at English Nature is alarmed by the speed of the process: “This has happened in three or four years,” he says. The report predicts that, in the UK, plants with multiple herbicide resistance will be “almost impossible to prevent unless the crops are very widely dispersed.”

Ms Cavendish also asked: “Could insects be affected?”

Insects and other pests can be affected: see  this University of Reading report and America’s National Center for Biotechnology Information. Though these reports relate to insect pests one would expect ‘useful’ insects and organisms to be harmed by exposure to the chemicals used in genetical engineering. (Photograph: https://phys.org/news/2018-10-genetic-reveals-key-resistance-global.html)

“The most important adverse characteristic of GM crops is the capacity of insect pests and weeds to develop resistance to GM induced insect resistance in crops or to herbicides used in conjunction with GM induced pesticide resistant crops” (Reading).

After accepting her genetically engineered Covid vaccine she asked if it made sense to spurn GM food.

*Professor Michael Antoniou (left), writing as a ‘career-long contributor to medical biotechnology’ strongly disagreed with Camilla Cavendish’s statement that we must overcome the fear of genetic engineering in our food. He explained that medical applications of GM are completely different from food uses:

“Medicines are targeted at those who need them and are strictly regulated. Any effects are confined to the individual who gives their informed consent to accepting risks in exchange for hoped-for benefits. Effects are monitored post release”.

“What the UK government is advocating — and Cavendish is supporting — is the deregulation of GM foods, meaning the removal of safety checks and labelling that enables the public to choose whether to take the risk of eating a novel GM food.

“Labelling also ensures traceability in case something goes wrong — such as the appearance of new toxins or allergens, which, given the inherent imprecision and unpredictability of GM is well within the realms of possibility”

He ended: “The safeguards that exist under current GM food laws must be maintained to protect public health”.

–

*Michael Antoniou Head, Gene Expression and Therapy Group, King’s College London Department of Medical and Molecular Genetics, Guy’s Hospital, London

o

A surge in America’s GM-free imports

 “Although corn and soybean go primarily into cattle and poultry feed, consumers increasingly want milk and food products to be free of GM ingredients”.

A Bloomberg report continues: “A growing demand for organics, and the near-total reliance by U.S. farmers on genetically modified corn and soybeans, is driving a surge in imports from other nations where crops largely are free of bioengineering. Imports such as corn from Romania and soybeans from India are booming, according to an analysis of U.S. trade data released Wednesday by the Organic Trade Association and Pennsylvania State University.

“Sales of foods certified by the U.S. as free of synthetic chemicals or genetic engineering reached $35.9 billion in 2014, an 11% increase over 2013 and about 5.1% of U.S. grocery spending. The organic sector’s average annual growth of about 10% is triple that of overall food sales, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture and trade association data.

“According to trade data compiled by the US Organic Trade Association and the Pennsylvania State University, the rising demand for organic foods has pushed up the import bill for corn and soybean, the two most important GM crops being cultivated in America. Although corn and soybean go primarily into cattle and poultry feed, consumers are increasingly wanting milk and food products to be free of GM ingredients”.

Straws in the wind?

The New York Times also reported in January that Monsanto’s earnings fell 34% in the first fiscal quarter as South American farmers cut back on planting corn, reducing demand for the company’s biotech-enhanced seeds. The company said its business was also affected by reduced cotton planting in Australia and a shift in timing for its chemical business.

Analyst Devinder Sharma notes that: “US imports of organic soybean from India has more than doubled to $73.8 million in 2014. He called on the two pro-GM scientists to debate independent scientific findings as opposed to focussing only on industry funded research. His views were supported by two other spokesmen, one from Maharashtra, where open field crop trials of brinjal, maize, rice, chickpea and cotton are taking place and another from India’s Greenpeace: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klW7fD1wb7s

As US imports more organic foods on consumer preference, Indian biotech companies are ‘pushing for GM crops’

Sharma reports that public opinion as seen in grocery sales data indicates a gradual shifting to foods grown without the use of chemicals and GM. However, in India, four State Governments – Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Karnataka and Punjab – have allowed field trials of GM crops. He sees pressure mounting on other State Governments to fall in line. The biotech industry led by the Association of Biotec Led Enterprises (ABLE) has reportedly written to Prime Minister Narendra Modi to expedite the regulatory process for clearing the field trials.

Competing lobbies: the biotech industry v Soybean Processor Association

Resistance from the Soybean Processor Association of India (SOPA) led former Agriculture Minister Ajit Singh to oppose research trials of GM soybean. The industry claimed that importers preference for Indian soymeal would be lost once contamination from GM crops becomes obvious. India is at present the biggest exporter of rice; Sharma comments that allowing GM rice field trials, even if excluded from areas such as Orissa where it is believed to have originated, would risk contamination. He emphasises that utmost caution should be exercised before the country is opened up for field trials of GM crops which:

• have, in most cases, led to the doubling in the application of chemical herbicides like glyphosate; use has increased to over 283.5 million pounds in 2012;
• have led to the emergence of superweeds in some 60 million acres of crop land
• and, to date, have shown no increase in crop productivity.

Sharma notes that the annual increase in sales of foods free of synthetic chemicals and GM ingredients in the US indicate a rising preference for organically produced foods and that in the White House Michelle Obama grows only organic food in the sprawling gardens and is known to serve organic food to guests, ending:

The consumer preference for GM-free foods in the US is growing rapidly. We hope that this commercial imperative will eventually lead to the winding down of the industry’s drive to grow GM crops.

–

Owen Paterson you are right – GM poses no problems

American farmers enjoy hand weeding their GM crops, using flame throwers or Agent Orange on the ‘superweeds’.

Children on farms with asthma who find it hard to breathe when the giant ragweed is pollinating – no problem, keep them indoors.

And buying more herbicides and hardware to eliminate the weeds increases the country’s GDP.

.

Read more in the New York Times and on the BBC website.

.

As further problems with superbugs and superweeds are reported, DEFRA minister Paterson is to call for a fresh debate on GM crops

Yesterday Alistair Driver reported in the Farmers Guardian, that DEFRA Secretary Owen Paterson will call for a fresh debate on the use of genetically modified (GM) crops in the UK in a speech on Thursday.

He noted that the UK Government has always been one of the biggest proponents of the GM crops within the EU, adding that Paterson, “an outspoken supporter of the controversial technology”, will highlight the need for a new direction in GM policy.

Superweeds

Devinder Sharma (a Delhi analyst, trained in plant breeding & genetics) notes, “ever since genetically modified (GM) crops have been commercialised, the pace at which insects and weeds are developing resistance has hastened”.

He highlights agribusiness research consultancy Stratus report that nearly half of US farms report superweeds and reproduces its line chart adding that the problem has now spread to Canada, quoting the Manitoba Co-operator’s review of the Stratus survey:

“More than one million acres of Canadian farmland have glyphosate-resistant weeds growing on them.”

.

Superbugs

Nature Biotechnology summarises the findings of a team of experts at the University of Arizona: “Analyzing data from 77 studies of 13 pest species in eight countries on five continents, the researchers found well-documented cases of field-evolved resistance to Bt crops in five major pests as of 2010, compared with only one such case in 2005. Three of the five cases are in the United States, where farmers have planted about half of the world’s Bt crop acreage”. Its chart:

Dr Sharma concludes:

“For the industry, the development of superbugs and superweeds across the globe provides an immense business opportunity. GM companies are asking farmers to spray more stronger and potent chemicals . . .The top three GM companies now control over 70% of global seed sales and also dominate the pesticides market . . . .

“With millions of acres under GM crops being infested with superweeds and superbugs and the acreage growing with every passing year . . . (in time) superweeds and superbugs will turn into mankind’s biggest challenge”

He believes that this will happen, not in the distant future, but in our lifetime.

.

Creating superweeds? Bt brinjal and its spread to ‘wild relatives’

Delhi’s Devinder Sharma sends the news that the research done by John Samuels of the Novel Solanaceae Crops Project, Penzance, Cornwall, UK,, commissioned by Greenpeace has now been published in Trends in Biotechnology (Vol 31, Issue 6, June 2013).

.

Citing various reasons like inadequate experimental methodologies and erroneous nomenclature of the parent species, John Samuel tells us that the biosafety implications of hybridisation remained compromised. He writes:

.

“There is insufficient evidence that GE brinjal will remain uncontaminated, and this risk needs to be evaluated (Andow, 2010).

.

“The possibility of ‘impinging upon the right of farmers for safe and sustainable use of indigenous agro-biodiversity’ (Yadugiri, 2010) is a concern, whereby the genetic resources of many traditional cultivars and landraces could be compromised by transgene transfer.

.

“Certain traditional systems of medicine in India employ brinjal or some of its close relatives (Anand, 2006; Kameswara Rao, 2011) and there is further concern over genetic compromise of these much-valued treatments. Some would argue that brinjal itself is not a significant component in such preparations (Kameswara Rao, 2011), but nevertheless several close relatives, interfertile with brinjal, ostensibly are.

.

“At the Tenth Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP10) in Japan in October, 2010 a new ten-year Strategic Plan with 20 targets was constructed. Target 9 is geared towards preventing the introduction of invasive species,whilst Target 13 relates to conserving the genetic diversity of crops and their wild relatives (CBD, 2010). In accordance with COP10 guidance, and whilst the Indian moratorium continues, it is proposed here that more detailed and thorough consideration is given to the implications for plant biodiversityof the commercialization of Bt brinjal”.

.

Sharma writes:

.

“Looking through the research data now available, he says that six wild relative species and four cultivated species have the potential to crossbred with the transgenic Bt brinjal. I have taken this table out from the article for an easy understanding. 

“Hope the scientists as well as the science administrators are listening. Especially in the light of latest revelations that show how superweeds are becoming a nuisance in United States and Canada.” 

—
Posted By Devinder Sharma to Ground Reality at 5/28/2013 05:35:00 PM

Biotech companies dismissed a film recording US farmers’ experience of ten years of GM cultivation – but over 36,000 saw it, thanks to You Tube

Cornish farmer Michael Hart comments on a recent article:

“Biotech companies have used the “known to be against GM” tactic about those involved in research, to dismiss the work as no good on a number of blogs”.

This tactic was also used when Michael’s Hart’s 23-minute film was shown.

He had travelled across the US interviewing farmers and other specialists about their experiences of growing genetically modified crops in the USA, ten years after their introduction.

During the making of the film he heard about many problems:

• A huge “weed” problem.
• The myth of co-existence.
• Farmers trapped into the genetically modified biotech system.
• Huge price increases for seeds and sprays – well beyond the price increases farmers have received for their crops.

These charges were not rebutted by the companies, whose public relations strategy was simply to say that he was “known to be against GM crops” and imply that he had edited it to say what he wanted. Fortunately access to Youtube meant that people were able to see  it and judge for themselves.

When in the USA, Michael met a number of scientists who said that work they had done, which did not show GM in a good light, was binned because of the patent laws; these ensured that whoever owned the genes called the tune and research could not be published without their permission. Those that tried to bypass the binning of their work, told him that they were reminded that their jobs and pensions were at risk! He ended:

“The key point as far as I am concerned is that the recent French study was long term research and independent – something the pro GM lobby has either not done and/or has not made public if they have.

GMO Myths and Truths: Dr Michael Antoniou et al

http://earthopensource.org/index.php/reports/58

Genetically modified (GM) crops are promoted on the basis of a range of far-reaching claims from the GM crop industry and its supporters, who say that GM crops:

• are an extension of natural breeding and do not pose different risks from naturally bred crops,
• are safe to eat and can be more nutritious than naturally bred crops,
• are strictly regulated for safety,
• increase crop yields,
• reduce pesticide use,
• benefit farmers and make their lives easier,
• bring economic benefits,
• benefit the environment,
• can help solve problems caused by climate change,
• reduce energy use and
• will help feed the world.

However, a large and growing body of scientific and other authoritative evidence shows that these claims are not true. Evidence presented in this report indicates that GM crops:

• are laboratory-made, using technology that is totally different from natural breeding methods, and pose different risks from non-GM crops,
• can be toxic, allergenic or less nutritious than their natural counterparts,
• are not adequately regulated to ensure safety,
• do not increase yield potential,
• do not reduce pesticide use but increase it,
• create serious problems for farmers, including herbicide-tolerant “superweeds”, compromised soil quality, and increased disease susceptibility in crops,
• have mixed economic effects,
• harm soil quality, disrupt ecosystems, and reduce biodiversity,
• do not offer effective solutions to climate change,
• are as energy-hungry as any other chemically-farmed crops and
• cannot solve the problem of world hunger but distract from its real causes – poverty, lack of access to food and, increasingly, lack of access to land to grow it on.

Based on the evidence presented in this report, the authors stress that there is no need to take risks with GM crops when effective, readily available, and sustainable solutions to the problems that GM technology is claimed to address already exist.

Conventional plant breeding, in some cases helped by safe modern technologies like gene mapping and marker assisted selection, continues to outperform GM in producing high-yield, drought-tolerant, and pest and disease-resistant crops that can meet our present and future food needs.

Read the full GMO Myths and Truths report