Biotech Food Myths, Misconceptions and Misinformation
--
A Response to False Activist Claims
AgBioWorld
June 21, 2003
(PDF
Version)
On June 15, a group of anti-biotech organic food activists
calling themselves the "Independent Science Panel" issued a
report called The Case for a GM-Free Sustainable World, regarding crops
and foods improved using modern biotechnology techniques. That report
makes a series of claims regarding bioengineered crops that is not supported
by the depth and breadth of extensive scientific and economic data collected
in laboratory tests, field trials and commercial cultivation over the
past two decades. The following report from the AgBioWorld Foundation
is a point-by-point refutation of those assertions.
Myth 1. Activists say: "GM crops failed
to deliver promised benefits."
FACTS: Crops improved through biotechnology enjoy farmer satisfaction
levels in the high 90% ranges, and these new varieties have penetrated
the market at rates never before seen in agriculture. The reasons are
very simple: Despite the desperate denials of activists, these crops deliver
value to farmers, including lower overall costs and more efficient methods
for controlling insect pests, weeds and diseases with reduced environmental
impacts. This is why the overwhelming majority of farmers have freely
chosen to plant biotech improved crops year after year once they try them.
As a direct result of the introduction of biotech improved crops,
pesticide use has been dramatically reduced, and herbicide use has shifted
from older, narrow spectrum and higher toxicity compounds to the newer
generation of broader spectrum lower impact formulas (see Gianessi et
al. studies at www.ncfap.org). There have been no confirmed crop failures
with biotech-improved crops. The rare, ephemeral case of alleged under-performance
seems to be associated with the use of inferior starting varieties unrelated
to the biotechnology-mediated improvement.
Myth 2. Activists say: "GM crops [are]
posing escalating problems on the farm. The instability of
transgenic lines has plagued the industry from the beginning, and this
may be responsible for a string of major crop failures. A review in 1994
stated, 'While there are some examples of plants which show stable expression
of a transgene these may prove to be the exceptions to the rule. In an
informal survey of over 30 companies involved in the commercialisation
of transgenic crop plants…almost all of the respondents indicated
that they had observed some level of transgene inaction. Many respondents
indicated that most cases of transgene inactivation never reach the literature.'"
FACTS: Predictions of widespread problems based on this ten-year-old
article have since been shown by vast experience with commercial crops
to be incorrect. Commercialized biotech varieties go through more screening
and scrutiny, in advance, in depth and detail, than any other new crop
varieties in history. The sort of instability alleged, which does happen
rarely during product development, is routinely eliminated by companies
for obvious reasons. In fact, data demonstrating stable Mendelian inheritance
of the transgene are required as a matter of law by regulators.
Myth 3. Activists say: "Triple herbicide-tolerant
oilseed rape volunteers that have combined transgenic and non-transgenic
traits are now widespread in Canada. Similar multiple
herbicide-tolerant volunteers and weeds have emerged in the United States."
Facts: Claims that herbicide-tolerant volunteer plants have become
problematic for Canadian growers of oilseed rape (known as canola in North
America) are both false and misleading. Most canola growers in Canada
do not have any problem with herbicide tolerant volunteers, as different
herbicides or cultivation remain satisfactory control measures. Unlike
conventional or organic crops, biotech improved pest resistant crops have,
from the beginning, been marketed with stewardship programs in place to
forestall the evolution of the type of pest resistance scientists have
in fact seen with conventional and organic crops. Indeed, as the activists
note in the quoted passage above, the few cases of herbicide tolerant
canola (oilseed rape) volunteers includes those that have inherited the
herbicide-tolerance trait from conventionally modified, rather than bioengineered
varieties.
Myth 4. Activists say: "Extensive transgenic
contamination [is] unavoidable. Extensive transgenic contamination
has occurred in maize landraces growing in remote regions in Mexico despite
an official moratorium that has been in place since 1998."
FACTS: It is odd that some activists find the natural process of pollen
flow to be alarming when it comes from precisely improved biotech crops
that require fewer pesticide sprays, but are unremarkable from conventional
crops or wild plants. To use this natural biological phenomenon as a tool
to foment fear represents a significant departure from anything supportable
by science. IF pollen from biotech crops has carried DNA from biotech
improved varieties into Mexican landraces, it is because the landrace
stewards have continued their age-old practice of importing foreign genetic
material as a source of new variation to use in improving the ever dynamic
and evolving manmade corn varieties. The biotech traits involved, if transferred,
would not present any kind of threat; instead, they would add value to
these varieties by enabling the landraces to resist insect pests or herbicides.
If the landrace stewards do not find these traits desirable they can easily
eliminate them through selection. A pure or static crop landrace has never
existed and could not exist.
Myth 5. Activists say: "GM crops [are]
not safe."
FACTS: Crops improved through biotechnology have undergone more safety
and environmental testing than any crop varieties in history, and have
been produced and consumed by humans and animals in millions of tons around
the world for years. They have been proven as safe as the scientific method
permits, by every valid method known to science and medicine. There is,
to date, not a single solitary confirmed case of human or animal illness
or disease associated with a biotech crop. Nor has a single negative environmental
impact been credibly attributed to biotech-improved varieties. The entire
body of this vast experience has shown these crops to be at least as safe
as, and in many ways safer than, conventional crops and foods. See the
recent International Council for Science report (www.icsu.org)
for a synthesis of the scientific studies on this topic, or refer to the
bibliography
of published scientific studies on the AgBioWorld Foundation website
(http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech_info/articles/gen_safety.html).
Beyond the safety approval of three U.S. government agencies, both the
American Medical Association and British Medical Association, as well
as dozens of other scientific bodies, have said that there are no food
safety concerns with currently commercialized biotech crops.
Myth 6. Activists say:
"The principle of 'substantial equivalence', on which risk assessment
is based, is intended to be vague and ill-defined, thereby giving companies
complete licence in claiming transgenic products 'substantially equivalent'
to non-transgenic products, and hence 'safe'."
Facts: The concept of "substantial equivalence" is misrepresented
in the passage quoted above. Transgenic products are not assumed to be
safe, allowing them to be exempt from safety testing. Substantial equivalence
is a conclusion that can only be reached AFTER testing to ensure that
the biotech improved crop is, in fact, equivalent to its conventional
counterpart in nutritional and safety aspects.
Myth 7. Activists say: "Dangerous gene
products are incorporated into crops."
FACTS: Bt proteins are used because of their excellent and well-documented
specificity for narrow groups of insect pests, as well as their long history
of safe use by organic and non-organic farmers. Activists inconsistently
claim there are safety issues when used in biotech crops, but they make
no such representations when they are used indiscriminately and without
regulatory oversight by organic farmers. This appears to demonstrate that
the activists do not believe their own arguments about safety.
Myth 8. Activists say: "Food crops are
increasingly used to produce pharmaceuticals and drugs."
Facts: Food crops used to produce pharmaceutical compounds provide
a highly promising way to increase the safe and effective production of
vital medicines to treat crippling diseases at lower costs to producers
and patients. Furthermore, scientists have vast experience deriving medicinal
and industrial compounds from plant sources. Indeed, canola (oilseed rape),
which is one of the most important food crops in North America, is a conventionally
modified variety of the same plant species used to produce industrial
lubricants that are toxic to human beings. It is disingenuous to oppose
the use of biotech improved food crops for producing medical or industrial
substances, while condoning the use of canola. Perhaps activists do not
oppose canola consumption precisely because growers and processors have
an outstanding record of safe production and segregation.
Myth 9. Activists say: "Terminator crops
spread male sterility. Crops engineered
with 'suicide' genes for male sterility have been promoted as a means
of 'containing', i.e., preventing, the spread of transgenes. In reality,
the hybrid crops sold to farmers spread both male sterile suicide genes
as well herbicide tolerance genes via pollen."
FACTS: Sterile plants, by definition, cannot leave offspring and so
are incapable of "spreading sterility." Furthermore, no "terminator"
plants have ever been marketed. They remain an abstract concept described
in a patent application. But if some day in the future they are ever produced,
or if other genetic use restriction technologies are developed and deployed,
they are likely to be an excellent, safe, and robust method of mitigating
potential gene flow in those rare instances where such gene flow might
be undesirable.
Myth 10. Activists say: "Broad-spectrum
herbicides [are] highly toxic to humans and other species.
Glufosinate ammonium and glyphosate are used with the herbicide-tolerant
transgenic crops that currently account for 75% of all transgenic crops
worldwide. Both are systemic metabolic poisons expected to have a wide
range of harmful effects, and these have been confirmed."
FACTS: Allegations that herbicides like glyphosate pose realistic
safety threats to humans and animals are simply false, as can be ascertained
by anybody who takes the time to consult the review documents prepared
by government safety regulatory agencies or the toxicological literature.
These compounds target cellular receptors and metabolic pathways unique
to plants that are absent from animals. They have received the strongest
findings of safety from regulatory agencies and none of the negative consequences
alleged by activists for human health are confirmed from their use. Even
the group Environmental
Defense, rates glyphosate as among the least hazardous of the chemicals
included in its extensive database (http://www.scorecard.org/chemical-profiles/).
Myth 11. Activists say: "Genetic engineering
creates super-viruses."
FACTS: Recombinant DNA techniques for the first time enable researchers
to study viruses in detail and in ways previously unavailable. These help
scientists determine the functions and modes of action of virus genes
as a prelude to developing effective new therapies and means of disease
prevention. Recombination among viral strains is commonplace in nature,
and this is neither new nor limited to crops improved through biotechnology.
In order to ensure that biotechnology does not unwittingly exacerbate
this problem, regulators routinely follow the recommendation of experts
in the field and prohibit the introduction of sequences from exotic viruses
into crop plants being grown outside the natural ranges of those viruses.
Myth 12. Activists say: "Transgenic
DNA in food [is] taken up by bacteria in [the] human gut. There
is already experimental evidence that transgenic DNA from plants has been
taken up by bacteria 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."
FACTS: There is ZERO EVIDENCE to support concerns that functional
genes might be taken up from food, transgenic or otherwise, by bacteria
in soil or the human digestive tract. Even if the antibiotic marker genes
occasionally used in early biotech crops were so absorbed, they would
not even be detectable against the pre-existing background of antibiotic
resistance genes found widely in human intestinal flora. There is a strong
consensus among medical experts in microbial antibiotic resistance that
the clinical problems of antibiotic resistance stem from medical or patient
mishandling of antibiotics, to which the mechanics of agricultural biotechnology
are wholly irrelevant.
Myth 13. Activists say: "Transgenic
DNA and cancer. Transgenic DNA is known to survive digestion
in the gut and to jump into the genome of mammalian cells, raising the
possibility for triggering cancer. The possibility cannot be excluded
that feeding GM products such as maize to animals also carries risks,
not just for the animals but also for human beings consuming the animal
products."
FACTS: This is a totally fabricated concern contradicted by vast experience
and for which there is absolutely no supporting data. Any link between
transgenes and cancer is purely fictional.
Myth 14. Activists say: "CaMV 35S promoter
increases horizontal gene transfer."
FACTS: There are no data to support this fantasy. The ubiquity of
widespread natural mosaic viruses in cauliflower and its close relatives,
broccoli, cabbage, canola and others, and the demonstrated anti-cancer
effects of a diet rich in such vegetables, eloquently refutes this manufactured
concern.
Myth 15. Activists say: "[There's] a
history of misrepresentation and suppression of scientific evidence."
FACTS: Activist claims have been thoroughly evaluated by the community
of scientists and measured against replicable findings in published and
peer-reviewed literature. Their speculative and sometimes bizarre claims
routinely and repeatedly fail to survive this scrutiny. This is not because
evidence is suppressed, but rather because activists are consistently
frustrated in their search for credible evidence that might justify their
claims.
Myth 16. Activists say: "In
conclusion, 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 be firmly rejected
now."
FACTS: This "conclusion" has been shown to be false in each
of its several components by the preceding refutations. The facts are
that crops improved through biotechnology have, in advance of their use,
been subjected to more rigorous scrutiny, in depth and detail, than any
others in history. Wherever farmers have been allowed access to such crops
they have adopted them at unprecedented rates and inspired the highest
levels of farmer loyalty because they deliver value on multiple levels,
to the farmer, to the environment, and to consumers. In the end, if genuine
and systemic agricultural problems have arisen from, or ever do arise
from, biotech enhanced crops, then farmers will abandon them.
The fact that farmers continue to embrace bioengineered crop varieties
provides ample evidence that they HAVE been beneficial to the farm. And
the fact that the overwhelming majority of scientists, as well as every
major scientific organization that has evaluated the safety of biotech
crops, find them to be as safe as or safer than conventional crops, provides
ample evidence that health and environmental issues have been adequately
addressed.
|
