:The Case for a GM-Free Sustainable World ? A Summary

Why GM-Free?
1. GM crops failed to deliver promised benefits
*No increase in yields or significant reduction in herbicide and pesticide use
*United States lost an estimated $12 billion over GM crops amid worldwide rejection
*Massive crop failures of up to 100% reported in India
*High risk future for agbiotech: "Monsanto could be another disaster waiting to happen for investors"
2. GM crops posing escalating problems on the farm
*Transgenic lines unstable: "most cases of transgene inactivation never reach the literature"
*Triple herbicide-tolerant volunteers and weeds emerged in North America
*Glyphosate-tolerant weeds plague GM cotton and soya fields, atrazine back in use
*Bt biopesticide traits threatening to create superweeds and bt-resistant pests
3. Extensive transgenic contamination unavoidable
*Extensive transgenic contamination found in maize landraces in remote regions of Mexico
*32 out of 33 commercial seed stocks found contaminated in Canada
*Pollen remains airborne for hours, and a 35 mile per hour wind speed is unexceptional
*There can be no co-existence of GM and non-GM crops
4. GM crops not safe
*GM crops have not been proven safe: regulation was fatally flawed from the start
*The principle of ?substantial equivalence?, vague and ill defined, gave companies complete licence in claiming GM products ?substantially equivalent? to non-GM, and hence ?safe?
5. GM food raises serious safety concerns
*Despite the paucity of credible studies, existing findings raise serious safety concerns
*?Growth-factor-like? effects in the stomach and small intestine of young rats were attributed to the transgenic process or the transgenic construct, and may hence be general to all GM food
6. Dangerous gene products are incorporated into food crops
*Bt proteins, incorporated into 25% of all GM crops worldwide, are harmful to many non-target insects, and some are potent immunogens and allergens for humans and other mammals
*Food crops are increasingly used to produce pharmaceuticals and drugs, including cytokines known to suppress the immune system, or linked to dementia, neurotoxicity and mood and cognitive side effects; vaccines and viral sequences such as the ?spike? protein gene of the pig coronavirus, in the same family as the SARS virus linked to the current epidemic; and glycoprotein gene gp120 of the AIDS virus that could interfere with the immune system and recombine with viruses and bacteria to generate new and unpredictable pathogens.
7. Terminator crops spread male sterility
*Crops engineered with ?suicide? genes for male sterility, promoted as a means of preventing the spread of transgenes, actually spread both male sterility and herbicide tolerance traits via pollen.
8. Broad-spectrum herbicides highly toxic to humans and other species
*Glufosinate ammonium and glyphosate, used with herbicide tolerant GM crops that currently account for 75% of all GM crops worldwide, are both systemic metabolic poisons
*Glufosinate ammonium is linked to neurological, respiratory, gastrointestinal and haematological toxicities, and birth defects in humans and mammals; also toxic to butterflies and a number of beneficial insects, to larvae of clams and oysters, Daphnia and some freshwater fish, especially the rainbow trout; it inhibits beneficial soil bacteria and fungi, especially those that fix nitrogen.
*Glyphosate is the most frequent cause of complaints and poisoning in the UK, and disturbances to many body functions have been reported after exposures at normal use levels; glyphosate exposure nearly doubled the risk of late spontaneous abortion, and children born to users of glyphosate had elevated neurobehavioral defects; glyphosate retards development of the foetal skeleton in laboratory rats, inhibits the synthesis of steroids, and is genotoxic in mammals, fish and frogs; field dose exposure of earthworms caused at least 50 percent mortality and significant intestinal damage among surviving worms; Roundup (Monsanto?s formulation of glyphosate) caused cell division dysfunction that may be linked to human cancers.
9. Genetic engineering creates super-viruses
*The most insidious dangers of genetic engineering are inherent to the process; it greatly enhances the scope and probability of horizontal gene transfer and recombination, the main route to creating viruses and bacteria that cause disease epidemics.
Newer techniques, such as DNA shuffling, allow geneticists to create in a matter of minutes in the laboratory millions of recombinant viruses that have never existed in billions of years of evolution
Disease-causing viruses and bacteria and their genetic material are the predominant materials and tools of genetic engineering, as much as for the intentional creation of bio-weapons.
10. Transgenic DNA in food taken up by bacteria in human gut
Transgenic DNA from plants has been taken up by bacteria both in the soil and in the gut of human volunteers; antibiotic resistance marker genes can spread from transgenic food to pathogenic bacteria, making infections very difficult to treat.
11. Transgenic DNA and cancer
*Transgenic DNA known to survive digestion in the gut and to jump into the genome of mammalian cells, raising the possibility for triggering cancer
*Feeding GM products such as maize to animals may carry risks, not just for the animals but also for human beings consuming the animal products
12. CaMV 35S promoter increases horizontal gene transfer
Evidence suggests that transgenic constructs with the CaMV 35S promoter could be especially unstable and prone to horizontal gene transfer and recombination, with all the attendant hazards: gene mutations due to random insertion, cancer, re-activation of dormant viruses and generation of new viruses.
13. A history of misrepresentation and suppression of scientific evidence
There has been a history of misrepresentation and suppression of scientific evidence, especially on horizontal gene transfer. Key experiments failed to be performed, or were performed badly and then misrepresented. Many experiments were not followed up, including investigations on whether the CaMV 35S promoter is responsible for the ?growth-factor-like? effects observed in young rats fed GM potatoes.
GM crops have failed to deliver the promised benefits and are posing escalating problems on the farm. Transgenic contamination is now widely acknowledged to be unavoidable, and hence there can be no co-existence of GM and non-GM agriculture. Most important of all, GM crops have not been proven safe. On the contrary, sufficient evidence has emerged to raise serious safety concerns, that if ignored could result in irreversible damage to health and the environment. GM crops should therefore be firmly rejected now.
Why Sustainable Agriculture?
1. Higher productivity and yields especially in the Third World
*8.98 million farmers adopted sustainable agriculture practices on 28.92 million hectares in Asia, Latin America and Africa; reliable data from 89 projects show higher productivity and yields: 50-100% increase in yield for rainfed crops, and 5-10% for irrigated crops; top successes include Burkina Faso, which turned a cereal deficit of 644 kg per year to an annual surplus of 153 kg, Ethiopia, where 12 500 households enjoyed 60% increase in crop yields, and Honduras and Guatemala, where 45 000 families increased yields from 400-600 kg/ha to 2,000-2,500 kg/ha
*Long-term studies in industrialised countries show yields for organic comparable to conventional agriculture, and often higher
2. Better soils
*Sustainable agricultural practices reduce soil erosion, improve soil physical structure and water-holding capacity, which are crucial in averting crop failures during periods of drought
*Soil fertility maintained or increased by various sustainable agriculture practices
*Biological activity higher in organic soils: more earthworms, arthropods, mycorrhizal and other fungi, and micro-organisms, all beneficial for nutrient recycling and suppression of disease
3. Cleaner environment
*Little or no polluting chemical inputs with sustainable agriculture
*Less nitrate and phosphorus leached to groundwater from organic soils
*Better water infiltration rates in organic systems, therefore less prone to erosion and less likely to contribute to water pollution from surface runoff
4. Reduced pesticides and no increase in pests
*Integrated pest management cut the number of pesticide sprays in Vietnam from 3.4 to one per season, in Sri Lanka from 2.9 to 0.5 per season, and in Indonesia from 2.9 to 1.1 per season
*No increase in crop losses due to pest damage resulted from withdrawal of synthetic insecticides in Californian tomato production
*Pest control achievable without pesticides, reversing crop losses, as for example, by using ?trap crops? to attract stem borer, a major pest in East Africa
5. Supporting biodiversity and using diversity
*Sustainable agriculture promotes agricultural biodiversity, which is crucial for food security; organic farming can support much greater biodiversity, benefiting species that have significantly declined
*Integrated farming systems in Cuba are 1.45 to 2.82 times more productive than monocultures
*Thousands of Chinese rice farmers doubled yields and nearly eliminated the most devastating disease simply by mixed planting of two varieties
*Soil biodiversity enhanced by organic practices, bringing beneficial effects such as recovery and rehabilitation of degraded soils, improved soil structure and water infiltration.
6. Environmentally and economically sustainable
*Research on apple production systems ranked the organic system first in environmental and economic sustainability, the integrated system second and the conventional system last; organic apples were most profitable due to price premiums, quicker investment return, and fast recovery of costs
*A Europe-wide study showed that organic farming performs better than conventional farming in the majority of environmental indicators
*A review by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) concluded that well-managed organic agriculture leads to more favourable conditions at all environmental levels
7. Ameliorating climate change by reducing direct & indirect energy use
*Organic agriculture uses energy much more efficiently and greatly reduces CO2 emissions compared with conventional agriculture, both with respect to direct energy consumption in fuel and oil and indirect consumption in synthetic fertilizers and pesticides
*Sustainable agriculture restores soil organic matter content, increasing carbon sequestration below ground, thereby recovering an important carbon sink
*Organic agriculture is likely to emit less nitrous dioxide (N2O), another important greenhouse gas and also a cause of stratospheric ozone depletion
8. Efficient, profitable production
*Any yield reduction in organic agriculture more than offset by ecological and efficiency gains
*Smaller farms produce far more per unit area than larger farms characteristic of conventional farming
*Production costs for organic farming are often lower than conventional farming, bringing equivalent or higher net returns even without organic price premiums; when price premiums are factored in, organic systems are almost always more profitable
9.Improved food security and benefits to local communities
*A review of sustainable agriculture projects showed that average food production per household increased by 1.71 tonnes per year (up 73%) for 4.42 million farmers on 3.58 million hectares, bringing food security and health benefits to local communities
*Increasing productivity increases food supplies and raises incomes, thereby reducing poverty, increasing access to food, reducing malnutrition and improving health and livelihoods
*Sustainable agricultural approaches draw extensively on traditional and indigenous knowledge, and place emphasis on the farmers? experience and innovation, thereby improving their status and autonomy, enhancing social and cultural relations within local communities
*For every £1 spent at an organic box scheme from Cusgarne Organics (UK), £2.59 is generated for the local economy; but for every £1 spent at a supermarket, only £1.40 is generated for the local economy
10. Better food quality for health
*Organic food is safer, as organic farming prohibits pesticide use, so harmful chemical residues are rarely found
*Organic production bans the use of artificial food additives, such as hydrogenated fats, phosphoric acid, aspartame and monosodium glutamate, which have been linked to health problems as diverse as heart disease, osteoporosis, migraines and hyperactivity
*Studies have shown that on average, organic food has higher vitamin C, higher mineral levels and higher plant phenolics ? plant compounds that can fight cancer and heart disease, and combat age-related neurological dysfunctions ? and significantly less nitrates, a toxic compound.
*Sustainable agricultural practices have proven beneficial in all aspects relevant to health and the environment. In addition, they bring food security and social and cultural well being to local communities everywhere. There is an urgent need for a comprehensive global shift to all forms of sustainable agriculture.

Science vs GMO

Open Letter from World Scientists to All Governments Concerning
Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)

The scientists are extremely concerned about the hazards of GMOs to
biodiversity, food safety, human and animal health, and demand a
moratorium on environmental releases in accordance with the
precautionary principle.
They are opposed to GM crops that will intensify corporate monopoly,
exacerbate inequality and prevent the essential shift to sustainable
agriculture that can provide food security and health around the world.
They call for a ban on patents of life-forms and living processes which
threaten food security, sanction biopiracy of indigenous knowledge and
genetic resources and violate basic human rights and dignity.
They want more support on research and development of non-corporate,
sustainable agriculture that can benefit family farmers all over the
world.
Previous versions of this letter were submitted to many governments and
international forums.

Signed by 633 scientists from 74 different countries, including:

Dr. David Bellamy, Biologist and Broadcaster, London, UK
Prof. Liebe Cavalieri, Mathematical Ecologist, Univ. Minnesota, USA
Dr. Thomas S. Cox, Geneticist, US Dept. of Agriculture (retired), India
Dr. Tewolde Egziabher, Spokesperson for African Region, Ethiopia
Dr. David Ehrenfeld, Biologist/Ecologist, Rutgers University, USA
Dr. Vladimir Zajac, Oncovirologist, Genetisist, Cancer Reseach Inst,
Czech Republic
Dr. Brian Hursey, ex FAO Senior Officer for Vector Borne Diseases, UK
Prof. Ruth Hubbard, Geneticist, Harvard University, USA
Prof. Jonathan King, Molecular Biologist, MIT, Cambridge, USA
Prof. Gilles-Eric Seralini, Laboratoire de Biochimie & Moleculaire,
Univ. Caen, France
Dr. David Suzuki, Geneticist, David Suzuki Foundation, Univ. British
Columbia, Canada
Dr. Vandana Shiva, Theoretical Physicist and Ecologist, India
Dr. George Woodwell, Director, Woods Hole Research Center, USA
Prof. Oscar B. Zamora, Agronomist, U. Philippines, Los Banos,
Philippines
Rev. Dr. G.M. Swartwout, Founder, Remission-Foundation, Hilo, Hawaii-Kingdom

Open Letter from World Scientists to All Governments
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.

References: See World Scientists? Statement, Institute of Science in Society website
<www.i-sis.org.uk>
See Ho, M.W. and Traavik, T. (1999). Why Patents on Life Forms and
Living Processes Should be Rejected from TRIPS ? Scientific Briefing on
TRIPS Article 27.3(b). TWN Report, Penang. See also ISIS News #3 and #4
<www.i-sis.org.uk>
James, C. (1998,1999). Global Status of Transgenic Crops, ISAAA Briefs,
New York.
Benbrook, C. (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 No. 1, Idaho.
?Splitting Headache? Andy Coghlan. NewScientist, News, November 20,
1999.
?Metabolic Disturbances in GM cotton leading to fruit abortion and other
problems?<[email protected]>;
?Genetically Altered Crops ? Will We Answer the Questions??Dan McGuire,
American Corn Growers Association Annual Convention, Las Vegas Nevade,
Feb.4, 2000; see also ?Biotech News? Richard Wolfson, Canad. J. Health &
Nutrition, April, 2000.
See Watkins, K. (1999). Free trade and farm fallacies. Third World
Resurgence 100/101, 33-37; see also El Feki, S. (2000). Growing pains,
The Economist, 25 March, 2000.
Agriculture: towards 2015/30, FAO Global Perspectives Studies Unit
http://www.fao.org/es/esd/at2015/toc-e.htm
This is now admitted in an astonishing series of articles by Shereen El
Feki in The Economist (March 25, 2000), hitherto generally considered as
a pro-business right-wing magazine.
Farm and Land in Farms, Final Estimates 1993-1997, USDA National
Agricultural Statistics Service.
See Griffin, D. (1999). Agricultural globalization. A threat to food
security? Third World Resurgence 100/101, 38-40.
El Feki, S. (2000). Trust or bust, The Economist, 25 March, 2000.
Meikle, J. (2000). Farmers welcome £200m deal. The Guardian, 31 March,
2000.
Farm Aid fact sheet: The Farm Crisis Deepens, Cambridge, Mass, 1999.
US Department of Agriculture now holds two new patents on terminator
technology jointly with Delta and Pine. These patents were issued in
1999. AstraZeneca are patenting similar techniques. Rafi communique,
March, 2000
Simms, A. (1999). Selling Suicide, farming, false promises and genetic
engineering in developing countries, Christian Aid, London.
?Let Nature?s Harvest Continue? Statement from all the African delegates
(except South Africa) to FAO negotiations on the International
Undertaking for Plant Genetic Resources June, 1998.
Letter from Kilusang Mgbubukid ng Pilipinas to OECD, 14 Feb. 2000
<www.geocities.com/kmp.ph>
Farmer?s Declaration on Genetic Engineering in Agriculture, National
Family Farm Coalition, USA, <[email protected]>;
Farmer's rally on Capitol Hill, September 12, 1999.
McGuire, D. (2000). Genetically altered crops: will we answer the
questions? American Corn Growers Association Annual Convention, Las
Vegas, Feb. 4, 2000.
MAFF Fact Sheet: Genetic modification of crops and food, June, 1999.
See Ho, M.W. and Tappeser, B. (1997). Potential contributions of
horizontal gene transfer to the transboundary movement of living
modified organisms resulting from modern biotechnology. Proceedings of
Workshop on Transboundary Movement of Living Modified Organisms
resulting from Modern biotechnology : Issues and Opportunities for
Policy-makers (K.J. Mulongoy, ed.), pp. 171-193, International Academy
of the Environment, Geneva.
?The BRIGHT Project: Botanical and Rotational Implications of
Genetically Modified Herbicide Tolerance: Progress Report, March 2000,
sponsored by MAFF, SERAD, HGCA, BBRO, Aventis, Crop Care, Cyanamid,
Monsanto
Mellon, M. and Rissler, J. (1998). Now or Never. Serious New Plans to
Save a Natural Pest Control, Union of Conerned Scientists, Cambridge,
Mass.
Garcia,A.,Benavides,F.,Fletcher,T. and Orts,E. (1998). Paternal exposure
to pesticides and congenital malformations. Scand J Work Environ Health
24, 473-80.
Hardell, H. & Eriksson, M. (1999). A Case-Control Study of Non-Hodgkin
Lymphoma and Exposure to Pesticides. Cancer85, 1355-1360.
"Cotton used in medicine poses threat: genetically-altered cotton may
not be safe" Bangkok Post, November 17, 1997.
Hilbeck, A., Baumgartner, M., Fried, P.M. and Bigler, F. (1998). Effects
of transgenic Bacillus thuringiensis-corn-fed prey on mortality and
development time of immature Chrysoperla carnea (Neuroptera:
Chrysopidae). Environmental Entomology 27, 480-96.
Losey, J.E., Rayor, L.D. and Carter, M.E. (1999). Transgenic pollen
harms monarch larvae. Nature 399, 214.
See Wraight, C.L., Zangerl, R.A., Carroll, M.J. and Berenbaum, M.R.
(2000). Absence of toxicity of Bacillus thuringiensis pollen to black
swallowtails under field conditions. PNAS Early Edition www.pnas.org;
despite the claim in the title, the paper reports toxicity of bt-pollen
from a high-expressing line to swallowtail larvae in the laboratory. The
issue of bt-crops is reviewed in "Swallowing the tale of the
swallowtail" and "To Bt or Not to Bt", ISIS News #5
Deepak Saxena, Saul Flores, G, Stotzky (1999) Transgenic plants:
Insecticidal toxin in root exudates from Bt corn Nature 402, 480, p 480.
Mayeno, A.N. and Gleich, G.J. (1994). Eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome and
tryptophan production : a cautionary tale. Tibtech 12, 346-352.
Epstein, E. (1998). Bovine growth hormone and prostate cancer; Bovine
growth hormone and breast cancer. The Ecologist 28(5), 268, 269.
The secret memoranda came to light as the result of a civil lawsuit
spearheaded by lawyer Steven Druker against the US FDA, May 1998. For
details see Biointegrity website: <www.biointegrity.com>
Ewen, S.W.B. and Pusztai, A. (1999). Effects of diets containing
genetially modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat
small intestine. The Lancet 354, 1353-1354; see also
<http://plab.ku.dk/tcbh/PusztaiPusztai.htm>
Pat Phibbs, P. (2000). Genetically modified food sales 'dead' In EU
Until safety certain, says consultant , The Bureau of National Affairs,
Inc., Washington D.C. March 23, 2000.
See Ho, M.W. (1998,1999). Genetic Engineering Dream or Nightmare? The
Brave New World of Bad Science and Big Business, Gateway, Gill &
Macmillan, Dublin.
See Ho, M.W., Ryan, A., Cummins, J. (1999). The cauliflower mosaic viral
promoter ? a recipe for disaster? Microbial Ecology in Health and
Disease 11, 194-197; Ho, M.W., Ryan, A., Cummins, J. (2000). Hazards of
transgenic crops with the cauliflower mosaic viral promoter. Microbial
Ecology in Health and Disease (in press); Cummins, J., Ho, M.W. and
Ryan, A. (2000). Hazards of CaMV promoter. Nature Biotechnology (in
press).
Reviewed in Ho, 1998,1999 (note 37); Ho, M.W., Traavik, T., Olsvik, R.,
Tappeser, B., Howard, V., von Weizsacker, C. and McGavin, G. (1998b).
Gene Technology and Gene Ecology of Infectious Diseases. Microbial
Ecology in Health and Disease 10, 33-59; Traavik, T. (1999a). Too early
may be too late, Ecological risks associated with the use of naked DNA
as a biological tool for research, production and therapy, Research
report for Directorate for Nature Management, Norway.
N Ballas, S Broido, H Soreq, A Loyter (1989) Efficient functioning of
plant promoters and poly(A) sites in Xenopus oocytes Nucl Acids Res 17,
7891-903.
Burke, C, Yu X.B., Marchitelli, L.., Davis, E.A., Ackerman, S. (1990).
Transcription factor IIA of wheat and human function similarly with
plant and animal viral promoters. Nucleic Acids Res 18, 3611-20.
Reviewed in Ho, 1998,1999 (note 37); Ho, M.W., Traavik, T., Olsvik, R.,
Tappeser, B., Howard, V., von Weizsacker, C. and McGavin, G. (1998b).
Gene Technology and Gene Ecology of Infectious Diseases. Microbial
Ecology in Health and Disease 10, 33-59; Traavik, T. (1999a). Too early
may be too late, Ecological risks associated with the use of naked DNA
as a biological tool for research, production and therapy, Research
report for Directorate for Nature Management, Norway.
Kumpatla, S.P., Chandrasekharan, M.B., Iuer, L.M., Li, G. and Hall, T.c.
(1998). Genome intruder scanning and modulation systems and transgene
silencing. Trends in Plant Sciences 3, 96-104.
See Pawlowski, W.P. and Somers, D.A. (1996). Transgene inheritance in
plants. Molecular Biotechnology 6, 17-30.
Reviewed by Doerfler, W., Schubbert, R., Heller, H., Kämmer, C.,
Hilger-Eversheim, D., Knoblauch, M. and Remus, R. (1997). Integration of
foreign DNA and its consequences in mammalian systems. Tibtech 15,
297-301.
Draft Guidance for Industry: Use of Antibiotic Resistance Marker Genes
in Transgenic Plants, US FDA, September 4, 1998.
See Letter from N. Tomlinson, Joint Food Safety and Standards Group,
MAFF, to US FDA, 4 December, 1998.
See Barnett, A. (2000). GM genes 'jump species barrier'. The Observer,
May 28.
Forbes, J.M., Blair, D.E., Chiter, A., and Perks, S. (1998). Effect of
Feed Processing Conditions on DNA Fragmentation Section 5 - Scientific
Report, MAFF; see also Ryan, A. and Ho, M.W. (1999). Transgenic DNA in
animal feed. ISIS Report, November 1999 <www.i-sis.org.uk>
Mercer, D.K., Scott, K.P., Bruce-Johnson, W.A. Glover, L.A. and Flint,
H.J. (1999). Fate of free DNA and transformation of the oral bacterium
Streptococcus gordonii DL1 by plasmid DNA in human saliva. Applied and
Environmental Microbiology 65, 6-10.
Reviewed in Ho, 1998,1999 (note 37).
Gebbard, F. and Smalla, K. (1999). Monitoring field releases of
genetically modified sugar beets for persistence of transgenic plant DNA
and horizontal gene transfer. FEMS Microbiology Ecology 28, 261-272.
See Ho, M.W., Ryan, A., Cummins, J. and Traavik, T. (2000). Unregulated
Hazards, ?Naked? and ?Free? Nucleic Acids, ISIS Report for Third World
Network, Jan. 2000, London and Penang <www.i-sis.org.uk>
Viewpoint, Henry Miller, Financial Times, March 22, 2000
See Pretty, J. (1995). Sustainable Agriculture, Earthscan, London; also
Pretty, J. (1998). The Living Land - Agriculture, Food and Community
Regeneration in Rural Europe, Earthscan, London; see also Alternative
Agriculture: Report of the National Academy of Sciences, Washington
D.C., 1989.
Rosset, P. (1999). The Multiple Functions and Benefits of Small Farm
Agriculture In the Context of Global Trade Negotiations, The Institute
for Good and Development Policy, Policy Brief No. 4, Oakland.
Mruphy, C. (1999). Cultivating Havana: Urban Agriculture and Food
Security in the Years of Crisis, Institute for Food and Development
Policy, Development Report No. 12, Oakland.
Altieri, M., Rosset, P. and Trupp, L.A. (1998). The Potential of
Agroecology to Combat Hunger in the Developing World, Institute for Food
and Development Policy Report, Oakland, California.
Peter Rosset, Food First Institute.