We believe:

GMOs should not be released into the environment since there is not an adequate scientific understanding of their impact on the environment and human health.

We advocate immediate interim measures such as labelling of GE ingredients, and the segregation of genetically engineered crops and seeds from conventional ones.

We also oppose all patents on plants, animals and humans, as well as patents on their genes. Life is not an industrial commodity. When we force life forms and our world's food supply to conform to human economic models rather than their natural ones, we do so at our own peri

10 reasons to say ‘no’ to genetically engineered foods.

With the cost of food recently skyrocketing – hitting not just shoppers but the poor and hungry in the developing world – genetically modified (GM) foods are once again being promoted as the way to feed the world. But this is little short of a confidence trick. Far from needing more GM foods, there are urgent reasons why we need to ban them altogether.
1. GM foods won’t solve the food crisis
A 2008 World Bank report concluded that increased biofuel production is the major cause of the increase in food prices.[1] GM giant Monsanto has been at the heart of the lobbying for biofuels (crops grown for fuel rather than food) — while profiting enormously from the resulting food crisis and using it as a PR opportunity to promote GM foods!
“The climate crisis was used to boost biofuels, helping to create the food crisis; and now the food crisis is being used to revive the fortunes of the GM industry.” — Daniel Howden, Africa correspondent of The Independent[2]
“The cynic in me thinks that they’re just using the current food crisis and the fuel crisis as a springboard to push GM crops back on to the public agenda. I understand why they’re doing it, but the danger is that if they’re making these claims about GM crops solving the problem of drought or feeding the world, that’s bullshit.” – Prof Denis Murphy, head of biotechnology at the University of Glamorgan in Wales[3]
2. GM crops do not increase yield potential
Despite the promises, GM has not increased the yield potential of any commercialised crops.[4] In fact, studies show that the most widely grown GM crop, GM soya, has suffered reduced yields.[5]
A report that analyzed nearly two decades worth of peer reviewed research on the yield of the primary GM food/feed crops, soybeans and corn (maize), reveals that despite 20 years of research and 13 years of commercialization, genetic engineering has failed to significantly increase US crop yields. The author, former US EPA and US FDA biotech specialist Dr Gurian-Sherman, concludes that when it comes to yield, “Traditional breeding outperforms genetic engineering hands down.”[6]
“Let’s be clear. As of this year [2008], there are no commercialized GM crops that inherently increase yield. Similarly, there are no GM crops on the market that were engineered to resist drought, reduce fertilizer pollution or save soil. Not one.” – Dr Doug Gurian-Sherman[7]
3. GM crops increase pesticide use
US government data shows that in the US, GM crops have produced an overall increase, not decrease, in pesticide use compared to conventional crops.[8]
“The promise was that you could use less chemicals and produce a greater yield. But let me tell you none of this is true.” – Bill Christison, President of the US National Family Farm Coalition[9]
4. There are better ways to feed the world
A major UN/World Bank-sponsored report compiled by 400 scientists and endorsed by 58 countries concluded that GM crops have little to offer global agriculture and the challenges of poverty, hunger, and climate change, because better alternatives are available. In particular, the report championed “agroecological” farming as the sustainable way forward for developing countries.[10]
5. Other farm technologies are more successful
Integrated Pest Management and other innovative low-input or organic methods of controlling pests and boosting yields have proven highly effective, particularly in the developing world.[11] Other plant breeding technologies, such as Marker Assisted Selection (non-GM genetic mapping), are widely expected to boost global agricultural productivity more effectively and safely than GM.[12] [13]
“The quiet revolution is happening in gene mapping, helping us understand crops better. That is up and running and could have a far greater impact on agriculture [than GM].” – Prof John Snape, head of the department of crop genetics, John Innes Centre[14]
6. GM foods have not been shown to be safe to eat
Genetic modification is a crude and imprecise way of incorporating foreign genetic material (e.g. from viruses, bacteria) into crops, with unpredictable consequences. The resulting GM foods have undergone little rigorous and no long-term safety testing, but animal feeding tests have shown worrying health effects.[15] Only one study has been published on the direct effects on humans of eating a GM food.[16] It found unexpected effects on gut bacteria, but was never followed up.
It is claimed that Americans have eaten GM foods for years with no ill effects. But these foods are unlabeled in the US and no one has monitored the consequences. With other novel foods like trans fats, it has taken decades to realize that they have caused millions of premature deaths.[17]
“We are confronted with the most powerful technology the world has ever known, and it is being rapidly deployed with almost no thought whatsoever to its consequences.” — Dr Suzanne Wuerthele, US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) toxicologist
7. Stealth GMOs in animal feed — without consumers’ consent
Meat, eggs and dairy products from animals raised on the millions of tons of GM feed imported into Europe do not have to be labelled. Some studies show that contrary to GM and food industry claims, animals raised on GM feed ARE different from those raised on non-GM feed.[18] Other studies show that if GM crops are fed to animals, GM material can appear in the resulting products[19] and that the animals’ health can be affected.[20] So eating “stealth GMOs” may affect the health of consumers.
8. GM crops are a long-term economic disaster for farmers
A 2009 report showed that GM seed prices in America have increased dramatically, compared to non-GM and organic seeds, cutting average farm incomes for US farmers growing GM crops. The report concluded, “At the present time there is a massive disconnect between the sometimes lofty rhetoric from those championing biotechnology as the proven path toward global food security and what is actually happening on farms in the US that have grown dependent on GM seeds and are now dealing with the consequences.”[21]
9. GM and non-GM cannot co-exist
GM contamination of conventional and organic food is increasing. An unapproved GM rice that was grown for only one year in field trials was found to have extensively contaminated the US rice supply and seed stocks.[22] In Canada, the organic oilseed rape industry has been destroyed by contamination from GM rape.[23] In Spain, a study found that GM maize “has caused a drastic reduction in organic cultivations of this grain and is making their coexistence practically impossible”.[24]
The time has come to choose between a GM-based, or a non-GM-based, world food supply.
“If some people are allowed to choose to grow, sell and consume GM foods, soon nobody will be able to choose food, or a biosphere, free of GM. It’s a one way choice, like the introduction of rabbits or cane toads to Australia; once it’s made, it can’t be reversed.” – Roger Levett, specialist in sustainable development[25]
10. We can’t trust GM companies
The big biotech firms pushing their GM foods have a terrible history of toxic contamination and public deception.[26] GM is attractive to them because it gives them patents that allow monopoly control over the world’s food supply. They have taken to harassing and intimidating farmers for the “crime” of saving patented seed or “stealing” patented genes — even if those genes got into the farmer’s fields through accidental contamination by wind or insects.[27]
“Farmers are being sued for having GMOs on their property that they did not buy, do not want, will not use and cannot sell.” – Tom Wiley, North Dakota farmer[28]
References

What's wrong with genetic engineering

Genetic engineering enables scientists to create plants, animals and micro-organisms by manipulating genes in a way that does not occur naturally.

These genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can spread through nature and interbreed with natural organisms, thereby contaminating non 'GE' environments and future generations in an unforeseeable and uncontrollable way.

Their release is 'genetic pollution' and is a major threat because GMOs cannot be recalled once released into the environment.

Because of commercial interests, the public is being denied the right to know about GE ingredients in the food chain, and therefore losing the right to avoid them despite the presence of labelling laws in certain countries.

Biological diversity must be protected and respected as the global heritage of humankind, and one of our world's fundamental keys to survival. Governments are attempting to address the threat of GE with international regulations such as the Biosafety Protocol.

What are the main issues of concern for human health?

While theoretical discussions have covered a broad range of aspects, the three main issues debated are tendencies to provoke allergic reaction (allergenicity), gene transfer and outcrossing.

Allergenicity. As a matter of principle, the transfer of genes from commonly allergenic foods is discouraged unless it can be demonstrated that the protein product of the transferred gene is not allergenic. While traditionally developed foods are not generally tested for allergenicity, protocols for tests for GM foods have been evaluated by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and WHO. No allergic effects have been found relative to GM foods currently on the market.

Gene transfer. Gene transfer from GM foods to cells of the body or to bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract would cause concern if the transferred genetic material adversely affects human health. This would be particularly relevant if antibiotic resistance genes, used in creating GMOs, were to be transferred. Although the probability of transfer is low, the use of technology without antibiotic resistance genes has been encouraged by a recent FAO/WHO expert panel.

Outcrossing. The movement of genes from GM plants into conventional crops or related species in the wild (referred to as “outcrossing”), as well as the mixing of crops derived from conventional seeds with those grown using GM crops, may have an indirect effect on food safety and food security. This risk is real, as was shown when traces of a maize type which was only approved for feed use appeared in maize products for human consumption in the United States of America. Several countries have adopted strategies to reduce mixing, including a clear separation of the fields within which GM crops and conventional crops are grown.

Feasibility and methods for post-marketing monitoring of GM food products, for the continued surveillance of the safety of GM food products, are under discussion.

GM labelling and the law

Since December 2002, the law in Australia states that food labels must show if food has been genetically modified or contains genetically modified ingredients, or whether GM additives or processing aids remain in the final food.

Special labels are not required for:

• ‘Highly refined’ foods where the altered DNA or protein is no longer in the food (for example, oil from modified corn).
• GM food additives or processing aids - unless the new DNA remains in the food to which it is added.
• GM flavours where less than 0.1 per cent is present in the food.
• Food, food ingredients or processing aids where GM ingredients are ‘unintentionally’ present in less than 1.0 per cent.
• Food that is prepared at the point of sale (so takeaway and restaurant food will not have to be labelled).

Labels may be required where:

• Genetic modification has altered the food so that its composition or nutritional value is ‘outside the normal range’ of similar non-GM goods; for example, if GM technology is used to add vitamins.
• Naturally occurring toxins are ‘significantly different’ to similar non-GM foods.
• The food produced using GM technology contains a ‘new factor’, which can cause allergic reactions in some people.
• Genetic modification raises ‘significant ethical, cultural and religious concerns’ regarding the origin of the genetic material used.

The risks of genetically modified crops

Food regulatory authorities require that GM foods receive individual pre-market safety assessments. Also, the principle of ‘substantial equivalence’ is used. This means that an existing food is compared with its genetically modified counterpart to find any differences between the existing food and the new product. The assessment investigates:

• Toxicity (using similar methods to those used for conventional foods)
• Tendency to provoke any allergic reaction
• Stability of the inserted gene
• Whether there is any nutritional deficit or change in the GM food
• Any other unintended effects of the gene insertion.

A GM food will only be approved for sale if it is safe and is as nutritious as its conventional counterparts. The safety of GM foods is still being debated, as it is impossible to predict all of the potential effects on human health and the environment. Some public health experts, however, advocate caution and believe that ‘we are only at the "scientific starting line", we simply don’t know whether GM foods are safe’. Stephen Leeder, ‘Genetically modified foods - food for thought’

GM foods are more dangerous for children than adults

1. Children are generally more susceptible to toxins, allergens and nutritional problems.
   
   
2. They consume more milk which may be from cows treated with rbGH.
   
   
3. The emergence of antibiotic-resistant diseases may also significantly impact those
   children who are prone to recurring infections.
   

Pregnant mothers eating GM foods may endanger offspring

1. Embryo development can be adversely affected by tiny amounts of substances in
   the mother’s diet.
   
   
2. A pregnant mother’s diet may even alter gene expression in children and be passed
   on to future generations.
   
   
3. GM crops may contain substances that impact normal fetal development, but have
   never been adequately tested for these effects.

Milk from rbGH treated cows may increase risk of cancer and other diseases.

1. Monsanto’s genetically engineered bovine growth hormone is injected into dairy cows in US and
   elsewhere, to increase milk production.Milk from treated cows has much higher levels of IGF-1,
   a hormone considered to be a high risk factor for breast, prostate, colon, lung and other cancers.
   The milk also has lowered nutritional value, increased antibiotics and more pus from infected udders.
   
   
2. Milk from treated cows has much higher levels of IGF-1, a hormone considered to be a high risk
   factor for breast, prostate, colon, lung and other cancers.
   
   
3. The milk also has lowered nutritional value, increased antibiotics and more pus from infected udders.

GM proteins in soy, corn and papaya may be allergens

1. Tests cannot guarantee that a GM protein will not cause allergies.
   
   
2. The WHO and FAO offer criteria that help minimize the likelihood that allergenic GM
   crops are approved.
   
   
3. GM soybeans, corn, and papaya fail those criteria.
   
   
4. The GM proteins from these foods are too similar to known allergens.
   
   
5. This evidence was ignored by regulators, who approved the crops.

Rats fed GM tomatoes got bleeding stomachs, several died

1. Rats were fed the GM FlavrSavr tomato for 28 days.
   
   
2. Seven of 20 rats developed stomach lesions (bleeding stomachs);
   another 7 of 40 died within two weeks and were replaced in the study.
   
   
3. The tomato was approved despite unresolved safety questions by FDA scientists.

GM potatoes damaged rats

1. Rats were fed potatoes engineered to produce their own insecticide.
   
   
2. They developed potentially precancerous cell growth in the digestive tract, inhibited development of their brains, livers and testicles, partial atrophy of the liver, enlarged pancreases and intestines and immune system damage.
   
   
3. The cause was not the insecticide, but in all likelihood was the process of genetic engineering.
   
   
4. GM foods on the market—which were created with the same process—have not been subject to such an extensive testing protocol.

Decision on marketing Bt brinjal in a month

AHMEDABAD: Setting at rest the speculations over the commercial approval of Bt brinjal, Jairam Ramesh minister of state for environment and Forest (MoEF)

said a final decision on the approval of Bt brinjal was yet to be taken. He said the doubts and concerns raised over the issue would not be neglected.

"After consultations with the stakeholders and other government agencies, the final word will come after February 20 after submitting the report to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh," he said.

Ramesh had visited the city on Tuesday to be a part of regional public consultations in association with Centre for Environment Education (CEE) across the country. He said, "Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) has given its recommendation for commercialisation but the final decision over the issue is yet to be taken. We assure people of independent and transparent decision over Bt brinjal, it is not going to be taken in a closed room."

Animal genes in normally vegetarian food

No normally vegetarian food on sale in the UK contains copies of animal or fish genes. In addition, after consultation with The Vegetarian Society, the Government has accepted that if this does occur and the DNA of the inserted gene is still present in the final product it will be labeled with a phrase such as “contains copies of pig genes”. The general feeling in the food industry is that no manufacturer would be happy marketing any product so labelled.

THE VEGETARIAN SOCIETY

At its meeting on 1 August 1998, the Council (Board of Trustees) of The Vegetarian Society agreed to introduce the following policy regarding the genetic modification of foodstuffs:

“Genetically Modified products or products containing Genetically Modified ingredients are not acceptable to the Vegetarian Society because the Society believes it is impossible to guarantee that such products are completely in accordance with the Society’s vegetarian principles.”

The policy statement was subsequently updated on the 21 August 1999 to read:

“The Vegetarian Society considers that GM ingredients do not comply with the Seedling Symbol criteria.

The Society aims for all Seedling Symbol approved products to be free from GM ingredients and their derivatives as from 1 August 1999. Any company wishing to use the Society’s Seedling Symbol is contractually obliged to meet the approval criteria that ensures products are free from meat, fish, fowl, shellfish, battery eggs, products or ingredients tested on animals since 1986, or genetically modified ingredients.

The Society is concerned that the introduction of GM foods could pose a potential risk to the environment, animal welfare and human health.

The majority of cheese suitable for vegetarians is made using an enzyme developed with the use of biotechnology. This enzyme is produced using proven technology under controlled conditions with no environmental, animal welfare or human health implications. This enzyme is used in replacement of traditional rennet, which is taken from the stomach of a calf. The Vegetarian Society continues to endorse vegetarian cheese as a suitable replacement for cheese made with traditional animal rennet.”

How Can Gm Food Affect You

The GEAC has approved BT Brinjal for environmental release amidst widespread protests from citizens, NGOs, farmer organizations and eminent scientists. However the Minister of State (Independent Charge) Environment and Forests Shri Jairam Ramesh subsequently announced that a series of consultations will be organized with all stakeholders at different places before the final decision on this is taken and there in may lie a chance that the Government will actually place the interests of the people above those of corporations, for a change.

This is our last chance to stop GM. Many European Governments have rejected GM food as a result of protests from citizens refusing to become lab rats in the genetic experiment. Indians are not lab rats either. In the first leg of our campaign, more than 70,000 Indians wrote to the ex-Health Minister, Dr. Anbumani Ramadoss who took a firm public stance against GM foods. Let us do this again!

How to Avoid Genetically Modified Foods

Become familiar with the most common applications of genetic modification. These are the products (and their derivatives) that are most likely to be genetically modified:

• Soybeans - Gene taken from bacteria (Agrobacterium sp. strain CP4) and inserted into soybeans to make them more resistant to herbicides. See How to Live With a Soy Allergy for more information on avoiding soy products.
• Corn - There are two main varieties of GE corn. One has a Gene from the lepidoptera pathogen microorganism Bacillus thuringiensis inserted to produce the Bt toxin, which poisons insect pests. There are also several events which are resistant to various herbicide. Present in high fructose corn syrup and glucose/fructose which is prevalent in a wide variety of foods in America.
• Rapeseed/Canola - Gene added/transferred to make crop more resistant to herbicide.
• Sugar beets - Gene added/transferred to make crop more resistant to Monsanto's Roundup herbicide.
• Rice - Genetically modified to resist herbicides; not currently available for human consumption, but trace amounts of one GM long-grained variety (LLRICE601) may have entered the food supply in the USA and Europe.More recently, golden rice, a different strain of rice has been engineered to produce significantly higher levels of beta carotene, which the body uses to produce vitamin A. Golden rice is still undergoing testing to determine if it is safe for human consumption.
• Cotton - engineered to produce Bt toxin. The seeds are pressed into cottonseed oil, which is a common ingredient in vegetable oil and margarine.
• Dairy - Cows injected with GE hormone rBGH/rBST; possibly fed GM grains and hay.

Buy food labeled 100% organic.
Recognize fruit and vegetable label numbers.
Purchase beef that is 100% grass-fed.
Seek products that are specifically labeled as non-GM or GMO-free.
Shop locally.
Buy whole foods.

Scarcity of safety tests

How can the public make informed decisions about genetically modified (GM) foods when there is so little information about its safety? The lack of data is due to a number of reasons, including:

• It’s more difficult to evaluate the safety of crop-derived foods than individual chemical, drug, or food additives. Crop foods are more complex and their composition varies according to differences in growth and agronomic conditions.

• Publications on GM food toxicity are scarce. An article in Science magazine said it all: “Health Risks of Genetically Modified Foods: Many Opinions but Few Data”.¹ In fact, no peer-reviewed publications of clinical studies on the human health effects of GM food exist. Even animal studies are few and far between.

• The preferred approach of the industry has been to use compositional comparisons between GM and non-GM crops. When they are not significantly different the two are regarded as “substantially equivalent”, and therefore the GM food crop is regarded as safe as its conventional counterpart. This ensures that GM crops can be patented without animal testing. However, substantial equivalence is an unscientific concept that has never been properly defined and there are no legally binding rules on how to establish it.²

When food-crops are genetically modified, (“genetically modified” food is a misnomer!) one or more genes are incorporated into the crop’s genome using a vector containing several other genes, including as a minimum, viral promoters, transcription terminators, antibiotic resistance marker genes and reporter genes. Data on the safety of these are scarce even though they can affect the safety of the GM crop. For example:

• DNA does not always fully break down in the alimentary tract.^3,4 Gut bacteria can take up genes and GM plasmids5 and this opens up the possibility of the spread of antibiotic resistance.
• Insertion of genes into the genome can also result in unintended effects, which need to be reduced/eliminated by selection, since some of the ways the inserted genes express themselves in the host or the way they affect the functioning of the crop’s own genes are unpredictable. This may lead to the development of unknown toxic/allergenic components, which we cannot analyze for and seriously limiting the selection criteria.

Current testing methods need radical improvements.

Currently, toxicity in food is tested by chemical analysis of macro/micro nutrients and known toxins. To rely solely on this method is at best inadequate and, at worst, dangerous. Better diagnostic methods are needed, such as mRNA fingerprinting, proteomics and secondary metabolite profiling.⁶ However, consuming even minor constituents with high biological activity may have major effects on the gut and body’s metabolism, which can only be revealed from animal studies. Thus novel toxicological/nutritional methods are urgently needed to screen for harmful consequences on human/animal health and to pinpoint these before allowing a GM crop into the food chain.⁷

Genetically modified crops: The risk factor

Leading scientist Dr P M Bhargava warns that India may be flooded with genetically modified foods with unknown health risks unless the government takes urgent action.

some of the criticisms against GM foods

Environmental hazards

1. Unintended harm to other organisms
2. Reduced effectiveness of pesticides
3. Gene transfer to non-target species

Human health risks

1. Allergenicity
2. Unknown effects on human health

Economic concerns

Bringing a GM food to market is a lengthy and costly process, and of course agri-biotech companies wish to ensure a profitable return on their investment. Many new plant genetic engineering technologies and GM plants have been patented, and patent infringement is a big concern of agribusiness. Yet consumer advocates are worried that patenting these new plant varieties will raise the price of seeds so high that small farmers and third world countries will not be able to afford seeds for GM crops, thus widening the gap between the wealthy and the poor. It is hoped that in a humanitarian gesture, more companies and non-profits will follow the lead of the Rockefeller Foundation and offer their products at reduced cost to impoverished nations.