Greenpeace “Cries Wolf” about GM Food Ingredients
Many of us are familiar with Aesop’s story of the little boy who cried wolf. In the story a young shepherd entertains himself by watching the local villagers rush to assist him after his false warnings that a wolf is free in the flock. In the story the villagers stop believing the boy after he cries wolf a second time. However, when it comes to the succession of disproven and baseless claims by Greenpeace about genetically modified (GM) crops, we seem to have almost endless patience and Greenpeace has been unable to provide one piece of scientifically credible evidence that there is anything wrong with GM crops.
Why Greenpeace continue to raise concern over GM crops is perplexing. It is particularly baffling because the world faces huge challenges in feeding a growing population in a changing climate.
GM crops have delivered a wide range of benefits including reducing water, fuel and insecticide use and have increased farmer incomes across the globe by more than $50 billion. Greenpeace claims that GM crops increase costs to farmers and state there is no viable market for such crops. Claims such as these discredit Australian farmers as astute and independent thinkers who choose to grow GM. Farmers are highly skilled at using complex technologies, are often tertiary educated and are savvy businesspeople who have proven they can survive harsh climactic conditions and low prices for their crops. In other words, farmers would not choose to plant GM crops if they did not benefit from them.
Greenpeace’s “Spliced Bread” report contains absolutely no new evidence and the few studies that have been quoted in the report are either misrepresented or have been thoroughly discredited by the scientific community. The report claims that conventional breeding is safer than genetic modification, but this is not the view conveyed by scientific experts in Australia and abroad.
- “GM products have been in several foods for many years and consumed without any substantiated evidence of ill effects on health, and their safety confirmed by many peer‑reviewed studies world-wide”. Australian Academy of Science (2007)
- “There is a comprehensive body of knowledge that already adequately addresses current food safety issues including those dealing with GM products; it is considered by the experts as sufficient to assess the safety of GM products.” European Union Joint Research Centre (2008)
- “GM foods currently available on the international market have undergone risk assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health any more than their conventional counterparts”. World Health Organization (2005)
These are independent bodies of expert scientists who have no vested interest in GM crops. Views such as those expressed by the WHO should be given more credibility than political and environmental activists who seek to repeat the same exhausted messages.
American philosopher George Santayana once said: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”. If we do not put the alarmist claims of Greenpeace into context we will be condemned to a future where the scientific breakthroughs we require to feed a hungry world will be delayed for unsubstantiated reasons. This is already happening with GM Golden Rice.
Golden Rice produces a precursor of Vitamin A that the human stomach converts to Vitamin A during digestion. It has the potential to prevent millions of children from going blind or dying from Vitamin A deficiency in the third world. Although it was scientifically ready in 1999 it is still awaiting regulatory approvals and will probably be planted for the first time in 2012.
As noted by the Golden Rice developer Professor Ingo Potrykus, Golden Rice fulfils all the wishes the GMO opposition had earlier expressed in their criticism of the use of GM crops. Golden Rice has not been developed by and for industry. It fulfils an urgent need by complementing traditional interventions. It presents a sustainable, cost-free solution, not requiring other resources. It avoids the unfortunate negative side effects of the Green Revolution. Industry does not benefit from it. Those who benefit are the poor and disadvantaged. It is given free of charge and restrictions to subsistence farmers. It does not create any new dependencies. It will be grown without any additional inputs. It does not create advantages to rich landowners. It can be resown every year from the saved harvest. It does not reduce agricultural biodiversity and it does not affect natural biodiversity. There is, so far, no conceptual negative effect on the environment nor is there any conceivable risk to consumer health. Finally, it was not possible to develop the trait with traditional methods.
Professor Potrykus concludes that “Optimists might, therefore, have expected that the GMO opposition would welcome this case. As the contrary is the case, and GMO opposition is doing everything to prevent “Golden Rice” reaching the subsistence farmer, we have learned that GMO opposition has a hidden, political agenda. It is not so much the concern about the environment, or the health of the consumer, or the help for the poor and disadvantaged. It is a radical fight against a technology and for political success.”
While Greenpeace and many other activist groups seem happy to adopt and embrace other health related applications in technology, it is dumbfounding as to why GM food crops are so ferociously opposed. To accept and embrace technologies such as insulin which is mostly produced by GM bacteria, but to refuse food crops that benefit human health is hypocritical and a slap in the face of innovation. Regardless of their motivation, these claims deserve to be subjected to a much higher degree of scrutiny. It is no longer good enough to cry wolf.
I wonder whether this article is sponsored by Monsanto?
That scientists do not have a vested interest in GM is inaccurate – as research dollars globally move from the public to the private sphere, scientists look to corporate agribusiness to fund their research. The fact that Greenpeace, or anyone else, has not proven GM to be unsafe, does not mean it is safe.
As the public purse research funds are diminished, and the private sector steps in to fund technological innovations – the companies that produce GM seeds are not going to fund scientists to look into the adverse effects of GE organisms.
Where the government (such as CSIRO) still fund blue sky scientific research – those who dare to challange the dominant GM = silver bullet paradigm tend to find themselves out on their ear. Ask Maarten Stapper (see Australian story)
Let’s have a two-sided debate on this. And good on greenpeace for keeping this on the agenda
MADGE will be along to debunk this article later, “fact” by “fact. Can’t wait.
Is this a story or an opinion piece? What is Ms Dunne’s expertise? Has she recently scored a job doing PR for a biotech?
Here’s a reason to reject GM crops: “Monsanto is the only beneficiary. The company would gain by selling more Roundup and by controlling yet another crop through its gene patents, which in all other Roundup Ready crops in Canada, have disallowed farmers from saving seed,” said Terry Boehm, Vice President of the National Farmers Union, Canada. He was explaining Canada’s rejection of GM Alfalfa here, but the sentiment echoes the rejection in Canada and the US of GM Wheat.
Those farmers are as educated as Australian farmers, but they have more experience of widespread GE cropping. They know better.
Monsanto et al are here because our regulator is weak and our farmers’ groups are pro-business and pro-biotech. That is because GM cotton has been profitable for them. So far.
Problem is the CSIRO has said it is increasing pest problems for fruit crops and destroying soil biodiversity. These sorts of unpredictable environmental side-effects are the main reasons Greenpeace opposes genetically engineered crops; it’s not perplexing–you just have to look at their website. GM Canola is escaping all over North America and mutating so it has become resistant to two types of herbicide, not just one. Imagine if GM Canola here with Lantana or Mesquite or another class 1 weed. Good onyas! that’d be great for farmers.
How has GM helped American farmers? Monsanto’s roundup-ready seed which accounts for 90% of Soy has gone up in price markedly, as has roundup, their brand of herbicide. Great business plan, their stock rocketed. Until this year when farmers are finally started deserting in droves because of the gouging and the litigation. Now Forbes has called them the worst stock of the year. They also came 580th out of 580 in a recent Swiss world corporate ethics ranking. And they’re in court AGAIN for antitrust.
Plus there is lots of scientifically credible evidence that GM crops are not safe (check out Professors Seralini and Pusztai). GM crops are deemed unsafe all the time, in fact most applications are rejected. There just isn’t proof that GM per se is unsafe. The same as there is no proof it IS safe (which should be the test, not the reverse). How many more might be rejected if testing was thorough and independent? Our regulators don’t test anything here, they just review Monsanto’s literature. And independent scientists can hardly get their hands on the data to do their own reviews, much less the seeds.
And all the drought and saline resistance comes from conventional breeding and non-GE biotechnology such as Marker Assisted Selection. They just sell it with the herbicide-resistant GE trait so they can say they’re selling GE drought resistant plants.
What hypocrisy? I think you’ll find that Greenpeace has never campaigned against insulin because it’s made in a lab (so it can’t damage the environment), is thoroughly tested, and wasn’t invented but rather replicates something we already produced naturally. It’s chemically identical to the insulin people normally produce. No GM crop is identical to a natural crop, by definition and if it was there’d be no point in doing it. So, that’s more irrelevant biotech industry claptrap.
Anti-innovation? What about solar panels? Hyrdogen cars etc etc etc. That’s dumb.
And poor people need more and better food through a more equitable global economic system. They don’t need rice genetically engineered like carrots. Why don’t we just give them free carrots. Or better yet, they could grow and eat brown rice (which has mor Vit-A than Golden rice) instead of milling and polishing their rice white for export. So there.
Just had to comment on the supposed acceptance of GM insulin. How many diabetics are actually informed about the presence of GM in their insulin? Is the product labelled GM insulin? I don’ t think so. I’ve just been reading about insulin diabetics who have had major health problems while on the GM insulin which were resolved once reintroduced to animal insulin. Problems such as allergies, crohn’s disease, chronic fatigue and many more. Many diabetics are requesting nonGM insulin for a more stable and effective diabetic drug. To assert that this GM drug is accepted without informing those using the drug is disingenuous at best.
Re safety of GMOs, I think that epidemiological studies have show that since the introduction of GMO’s in the US modern health epidemics have abounded. Obesity, allergies, diabeties etc. Is it incorrect to say that *independent* scientific studies have found pancreatic disturbance in animals fed GMOs?
Greenpeace are doing what governments should have been doing. Demanding that proper scientific method, as opposed to the industry version, be given the weight it deserves in assessing the impact of GMOs.
If the GM industry is so sure of itself why does it refuse to let consumers decide whether they want to consume GMOs by implementing proper labelling?
Dr Vandana Shiva, in Australia this week to receive her Sydney Peace Prize, knows first-hand the source of famine and understands the solutions. She is a steadfast believer in the need for people to have control over their own seeds (not Monsanto) and says the answer to feeding the world is to avoid GM. Check out recent articles in the Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, Huffington Post and this video from a speech she gave last year: http://www.yesmagazine.org/planet/vandana-shiva-alternatives-to-monsanto-in-india?utm_source=tw&utm_medium=socmed&utm_content=OSU_VandanaShivaMonsanto&utm_campaign=100909_Planet.
There are so many things wrong with using GM crops, it’s hard to know where to start.
First of all, GM seeds produce plants that are weaker, more susceptible to disease, they help propagate pathogens, harm nitrogen fixation in plants and the glyphosate herbicide used on them poisons the soil for weeks after it is applied.
This link contains the chemistry behind the glyphosate herbicide used on GM crops, if you choose not to read the study results, you are willingly ignoring how dangerous this substance is:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/glyphosateTolerantCrops.php
As for the GM seeds themselves, the GM-selling companies have used their government agency connections (FDA, USDA) to erect a kind of bureaucratic wall to prevent independent scientists from studying their seeds and genetic modification methods, through patent law.
Now, if GM seeds were so miraculous, why wouldn’t they let others study them ? What do they have to hide?
Patent law in this case has multiple roles, first of all it lets companies sell seeds as if they had created them from scratch, when in fact only a few genes are different from an otherwise normal crop obtained through breeding (breeding is not to be confused with the GM process, which is much more aggressive and produces a weaker plant).
Another role of patent law lets GM companies sue farmers whose crops have been unwillingly contaminated with GM material, through open pollination, an unpreventable process, despite the fact farmers who have become victims of contamination don’t want anything to do with GM crops.
A third role of patent law, in this case, is to keep people from finding the flaws in the genetic modification process, which would show genetic modification to be an otherwise needless process, created only as a means to obtain a patent on food and create a global monopoly.
Do you really think giant transnational corporations have your best interests in mind? How do you think they got so large?
Australian Food News apologises for not
attributing Dan Quinn as author of this article, Josette Dunn
published it and did not intend to appear as the author
Josette Dunn didn’t write this article – I did. You can see the original here http://www.croplifeaustralia.org.au. We make no attempt to hide who we are and who we represent (we represent a large part of the agricultural biotechnology and crop protection industries). Is anyone else who commented on here prepared to be completely honest about their funding sources?
This article was sent out as a press release last week and Josette has published it with her name on the top, you will find she does the same with every page on this blog.
The point I was trying to make about GM insulin is that if you think eating GM food is dangerous etc then you’d surely think injecting it is much more high risk – there is no going back once you inject something into your blood, wheras the body can reject things it eats or breathes in a number of ways. So it is hypocritical to target one and not the other. I think the reason why one is targetted and not the other is because the anti-GM movement knows that they wouldn’t get far with that argument. In terms of reg’s claims of health effects, I would like to see some evidence or at least know what he was reading. The articles I have read have said that GM insulin is cheaper and safer (do you honestly think pulling a chemical out of a living animal doesn’t have zoonoses issues?) and that nearly all insulin is now made by GM bacteria. Another useful GM bacteria has been used to clean up oil spills since 1980.
I can’t believe the comment that the World Health Organization, Australian Academy of Science etc are not independent – that is real conspiracy theory stuff and a common tactic of the anti-GM movement (everyone who disagrees with us is corrupt). I’ve even seen Sir Gustav Nossal be called a Monsanto Stooge because he dared to say that “a hungry world needs this research” – he won a nobel prize in science! Sadly we lost one of the great proponents of GM crops earlier this year in Dr Norman Borlaug – the only man to ever win the Nobel Peace Prize for crop breeding. He was also attacked by extremists through much of his career. To most of us though he is acknowledged to have saved more lives than any other human in history.
Seralini and Pusztai are not scientifically credible. Pusztai released his results in 1998 on TV, thus avoiding the peer review process. He later had one of his experiments published in a journal – the Lancet, despite the recommendation of several reviewers that it was not of publishable quality. Given the controversy raised by Dr Pusztai’s comments when he appeared on British television, the experiments were reviewed by four separate, independent bodies – the Royal Society, the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics and the Donaldson/May Report. Each group raised serious doubts about Dr Pusztai’s conclusions due to the lack of proper controls and they found no reason to question the safety of GM foods based on his findings.
Without getting technical on the Seralini study, it was completely rejected by our Government’s Food Regulator – FSANZ, as having no scientific merit. If you care about why you can read it here – http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/scienceandeducation/factsheets/factsheets2009/fsanzresponsetoseral4647.cfm
If there are any other misunderstandings I will post here again, but I will not respond to any personal abuse. If you believe in your arguments then lets have a debate because I believe in mine. If not, then feel free to call me whatever you like, but don’t expect a response.
Ever heard of Cassandra?
She foresaw and forewarned the Sack of troy, her own city but no one believed her.
Apollo had given her the gift of prophecy. She had subsequently offended Apollo by using his temple to get her own sexual ends. He could not take back the prophetic tongue but he did make it so that noone believed her.
Troy was sacked and it was burned and pillaged.
Greenpeace has the right insight. Like Tobacco and DDT, the risk for GM has not yet been made clear in these ten years. There are risks that Greenpeace hasnt even dreamt of that WILL become known. There is a GM WOLF out there, the gm proponents prefer to shut their eyes to that. They may never even know it if they die before it is scientifically indisputably proven.
It Will become known.
Well of course Dan Quinns job for Croplife Australia is to try to push GM crops as he represents the GM and chemical industry players including Monsanto and Bayer Cropscience.
If the GM industry were not frightened of the results, they would encourage independent testing of their GM products, not try to enforce their patent rights and control the results.
Even the GM industries own health testing has found problems and the combination of the limited independent testing and the GM industry testing include:
1st generation:
damaged immune systems and increased allergies
development of lesions and/or pre-cancerous growths
unusually enlarged or damaged organs
temporary infertility
unexplained death
2nd generation and/or developing animals:
smaller brain, liver and testicles
immune system damage and metabolic change
organ damage
abnormal anxiety and aggression
precancerous tumour findings
infertility up to 100% permanent male sterility in offspring
abnormally high death rates
If Monsanto was not frightened of compensating stock owners, why would they have the warning printed on the US user agreement”“It is recommended that Roundup Ready Winter Canola not be grazed.” … “at the present time insufficient information exists to allow safe and proper grazing recommendations.”
Arpad Puztai was employed by the UK government to prove GM crops were safe and was considered the best expert in the field. He went public with his serious findings before he completed his testing because of serious concern for public health and the process of peer review etc would take many years to complete. He was not sacked for his incompetence, he was sacked the same week that 140,000 pounds was paid to Rowett University by Monsanto.
GM foods need to be investigated further as statistically we are seeing abnormalities such as decreased birth rates in USA and increased allergies.
The reason governments and scientists are supporting GM is because they have been promised a cut in profits made. Our government research sectors such as CSIRO have stated they are “in bed with these companies” for years and have profited well from it. Its nothing short of bribery to get government approval and government policies to push a path to market under the GM industries rules.
WA just lifted the moratorium this year and the State Ag Dept and all public plant breeding industries have formed Intergrain which is now almost 20% owned by Monsanto who injected $10.5million into this company which is far short of 20% of the value of the intellectual property that farmers and tax payers have paid for. All the seed rights produced by Intergrain has been exclusively granted to Monsanto’s alliance partner Nufarm (fully owned subsidiary is Nuseeds).
If the Monsanto patented GM gene is added to every variety produced by Intergrain and other plant breeding institutes, farmers will not have a choice. All farmers become contract growers for Monsanto and the contracts dictate how we grow the crop, who we deliver it to and who we sell it to. Monsanto manages to control the food supply which is a stated aim with a strategy set up by Arthur Anderson Consulting. Part of that strategy is to attack anyone that dares to question the technology.
Its not called crying wolf when there is good reason to question GM.
Shopping Safely