Who Can We Trust on GM Food?

• Former chief scientist David King praises GM crops. But can we trust a government scientist any more than an industry insider?
  By Peter Melchett
  The Guardian - UK, December 9, 2008
  
  

Last week, on the Radio 4 programme Street Science, a publicist for the GM industry made a number of claims about what GM crops can do. He said: "Using GM technology, there are now varieties of major crops, rice, wheat and maize being produced that are drought resistant, flood resistant, saline resistant and disease resistant, which could transform Africa's ability to feed its people ... Some products have emerged, for example, from South Africa. They are now planting drought resistant crops that have increased the yield by 30% ... So you can actually save millions of people from starvation by these techniques - nothing to do with the private sector ... Americans are perfectly happy to eat [unlabelled GM food] and I don't know of anyone who has ever suffered from eating a GM product."

There is nothing wrong with this - similar claims are made all the time by people working for GM companies. Except that this was not Monsanto's press officer, it was Professor Sir David King, recently retired as the UK government's chief scientist.

The first claim, if read carefully, is not inaccurate. GM companies are trying to produce crops that are drought, flood and saline resistant, and although none are available for commercial use, in theory such crops could increase food production in Africa and elsewhere - if you make a number of assumptions.

These assumptions are not scientific, they are political, subjective and highly contested. This particular point of view assumes that the key cause of hunger and starvation is lack of food, rather than problems with distribution, access to land, wars, corruption and poverty. It also assumes that in future poor farmers will have no problems with buying expensive seeds, fertiliser and pesticides, all of which are required by GM crops. I know many people assume GM crops must somehow be needed to feed the world. But the IAASTD (the food and farming equivalent to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report by 400 international scientists - led by Professor Robert Watson, now chief scientist at the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs - said GM crops were not essential to feed the world.

David King was wrong to say that drought-resistant GM products that increase yield by 30% are now being planted in South Africa. In fact, Monsanto is carrying out trials of GM drought-resistant maize in South Africa. The process of trialling the crops has only just begun (a permit was issued a year ago), and these crops are probably about eight years away from commercial use if they prove to be successful. No drought-resistant GM crops are currently grown commercially in South Africa. King has been wrong before about new crops in Africa, claiming that a successful project near Lake Victoria was benefiting from GM technology, before having to admit the crops involved were not GM at all.

In the BBC programme, David King referred to crops like rice that are "flood resistant". In fact the submergence tolerant (flood resistant) rice that is on the market is not GM, but instead marker assisted selection (MAS), normal breeding informed by knowledge of the genome and supported by environmentalists and organic organisations, was used to develop it. This is an example of the kind innovative non-GM plant breeding that is making a lot of progress in a number of areas that the GM companies are only just beginning to tackle - with unknown results. Marker-assisted breeding (usually called marker assisted selection) uses the genetic diversity found in crops or their wild relatives, combined with genomic data (genomic markers) to speed up what are otherwise essentially conventional breeding methods.

Two years ago, the scientists at the University of California Davis responsible for developing submergence tolerant rice initially tried to develop the rice using both MAS and GM techniques. While the MAS worked well and quickly, GM failed initially, for unknown reasons. The scientists were moving a rice gene into another type of rice, so this failure simply underlines the inherent uncertainty and lack of precision in GM technology. Finally, a couple months ago, the scientists did get the GM process to work, but this version is not being bred for sale to farmers. To get the GM process to work, the scientists had to attach the gene they wanted to transfer to a very powerful promoter - the part of the gene that determines in what parts of the plant, when, and how much, the gene functions (called "expression"). The promoter they used is from an ubiquitin gene and it is turned on at a high level in many tissues of the plant, most of the time.

This contrasts with the normal (native) promoter of the sub1A gene, which is turned on only when needed in the plants and at the correct levels. Therefore, while the sub1A gene, run by the ubi promoter may nominally function, it is much more likely to have negative side effects in the plant because of its incorrect expression (called ectopic expression). These effects could be harmful to health or the environment, or just have adverse effects on the agronomic properties of the crop (for example, it could cause the crop to grow poorly under some conditions, as has happened in practice with some other GM crops). Normal breeding using MAS worked better and faster, and is less likely to have negative side effects.

David King also mentioned GM crops that "have not been produced in the private sector, they've all been produced by government and international research laboratories" when he spoke about crops being developed for farming in South Africa. I assume that he was actually talking about the Water Efficient Maize for Africa project (WEMA), which involves several African countries - Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, and South Africa. The WEMA project was only announced in 2008, so no crops have yet been grown even experimentally. The projections for yield increases from this project are that "the maize products developed over the next 10 years could increase yields by 20-35% under moderate drought, compared to current varieties". But this applies to non-GM as well as possible GM varieties, and the first conventional varieties developed by WEMA could be available after six to seven years of research and development. The project says that GM drought-tolerant maize hybrids "will be available in about ten years".

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_17292.cfm

Agrocombustibles: secretos y trampas del Banco Mundial

Silvia Ribeiro

La Jornada

Un informe interno confidencial del Banco Mundial (BM) de abril de 2008 demuestra que la producción de combustibles agroindustriales, particularmente los derivados del maíz, son la causa principal de los aumentos de los precios de los alimentos, reveló ayer el diario británico The Guardian. (Aditya Chakrabortty, The Guardian 4/7/ 2008).

No se trata de una pequeña contribución a la crisis alimentaria: según el informe coordinado por Don Mitchell, reconocido economista del Banco, la producción de agrocombustibles es responsable hasta en 75 por ciento del aumento de los precios alimentarios, y no de 3 por ciento, como afirma el gobierno estadunidense. Fuentes del BM declararon a The Guardian, que el informe fue suprimido para “no avergonzar al presidente Bush”. Otro 15 por ciento del aumento se debería a la suba de los precios del petróleo y agroquímicos.

El informe afirma que hay tres factores primarios, que en efecto dominó son responsables del aumento de los precios de los alimentos. Primero, que los granos para producción de combustibles fueron desviados de la producción alimentaria. Una tercera parte de la producción de maíz en Estados Unidos se usa para etanol en lugar de alimentos. Europa está utilizando la mitad de los aceites vegetales que produce o importa, para producir biodiesel. Segundo, el estímulo a los agricultores para que dediquen más tierra a los agrocombustibles, a costa de la tierra dedicada a producir alimentos. Tercero, la promoción de los agrocombustibles abrió un excelente terreno para la fuerte inversión de los fondos financieros especulativos, causando más aumento de precios.

Los fondos especulativos (hedge funds) salieron del sector inmobiliario en crisis y entraron agresivamente a la compra de stocks presentes y futuros de granos, empujando el alza de los precios, como parte de las apuestas financieras. Actualmente, más de 60 por ciento de las reservas y producción futura de maíz, trigo y soya han sido compradas por este tipo de fondos.

El informe confirma también que el aumento de poder adquisitivo en países como China e India “no llevó a aumentos en la demanda de granos a nivel global”, tal como explicó claramente Alejandro Nadal (Adiós al factor China, La Jornada, 11/6/2008). Este es uno de los argumentos favoritos de Estados Unidos y Brasil, para justificar la crisis alimentaria y exculparse por la agresiva promoción de agrocombustibles. Mitchell concluye, sin embargo, que el impacto del etanol brasilero no tuvo la misma carga en la debacle internacional de precios. Claro que para el Banco Mundial , el hecho de que el etanol brasilero sea subsidiado con trabajo semiesclavo y devastación de ecosistemas únicos, no es un costo.

Según datos del Financial Times (30/10/07), el subsidio anual de los países de la OCDE a los combustibles agroindustriales es de 15 mil millones dólares anuales. David King, anteriormente jefe de asesores científicos del gobierno británico, declaró a The Guardian “(con los biocombustibles) estamos subsidiando el aumento del precio de los alimentos mientras que no hacemos nada para enfrentar realmente al cambio climático”

No es la primera vez que el Banco Mundial critica los agrocombustibles, pero este informe es mucho más detallado y preciso que los anteriores. Sin embargo, la propuesta “alternativa” del Banco, igual que la de las empresas de agronegocios, es que se aumente la ayuda alimentaria (así se subsidia a las mismas empresas de agronegocios que ganan tanto con alimentos caros como con agrocombustibles, y además venden los granos como “ayuda” alimentaria), mientras se refuerza el apoyo a las próximas generaciones de agrocombustibles, que conllevan cultivos y árboles transgénicos o cosas peores, como vida sintética artificial –con lo cual igual compiten por tierras y agua.

En este escenario, es absurdo y criminal que el gobierno mexicano siga insistiendo en la producción de agrocombustibles, que solamente beneficiarán (en grande, eso sí) a las grandes transnacionales de los agronegocios que dominan el comercio de granos en México y en el mundo, como Cargill y ADM, y a las que controlan la semillas de maíz u otros cultivos dedicados a ese fin, como Monsanto, Syngenta y Dupont, los barones de los transgénicos.

Cualquier inversión en agrocombustibles, del tipo que sean, espoleará la escasez y carestía de los alimentos. Si además, se autorizara el maíz transgénico, como pretende el gobierno para complacer a las transnacionales, se aumentará la dependencia de las empresas extranjeras, al tiempo que la contaminación transgénica dañará los cultivos convencionales y tradicionales, patrimonio histórico de México, que en manos de sus campesinos, son la verdadera solución para la producción de alimentos y la soberanía alimentaria.

*Investigadora del Grupo ETC

King controversy - evidence doesn't support chief scientist's claim for GM crops

THE ECOLOGIST, February 2008

The Government has been unable to substantiate public remarks made by its outgoing chief scientific adviser Sir David King that not investing in GM agriculture has cost the UK economy GBP4bn.

Sir David made the claim before the Government Select Committee on Innovation, Universities and Skills. He also accused BBC Radio 4's Today programme and the Daily Mail of stirring up 'gut fears' about GM.

In a statement to the Ecologist, his office said: 'Sir David's estimate was not based on the current market for GM crops, but was intended to reflect the potentially much larger European and global markets he considers would have existed had public concerns about the new technology been understood and addressed. Before hostility to GM crops, [the UK was] in a prime position to take full advantage of the opportunities offered by GM technologies and UK companies could have expected to take a significant share of the global market. This expertise, and the associated competitive advantage, has now been largely lost.'

Earlier in 2007, Professor Howard Davies, of the Scottish Crop Research Institute, estimated the entire worldwide GM industry to be worth only GBP2.5bn. In fact, the Soil Association estimates that investing in GM crops may have cost the US some $12bn between 1999 and 2001.

Sir David's comments came as veteran MP Michael Meacher proposed an Early Day Motion in Parliament calling on MPs to voice public regret at 'continuing attempts to silence or misrepresent scientists whose research indicates possible health problems from GM crops.'

At the time of going to press, 23 MPs had signed the motion, which was in part a response to attacks on campaign group GM Watch by Canadian Government employee Shane Morris, exposed on the GM Watch website for rigging research into GM crops (Comments, Dec/Jan 2008).

Meacher told the Ecologist he found the bias towards GM technologies within government and industry 'very worrying', and hoped the EDM would 'open people's eyes to the interplay between science and politics'.

His comments came in response to the first public appearance of Sir David King's successor, Professor John Beddington, who said he saw no safety reasons for opposing the growth of GM crops on UK soil. Shortly before Christmas the Daily Mail exposed one of David King's 'examples' of the benefits of GM crops as being false.

---

Editorial
Pat Thomas

THE ECOLOGIST, February 2008

'We'd really like a woman to talk about this,' said the researcher from BBC2's The Daily Politics show. I marvelled that TV was even more crass behind the scenes than on screen, and wondered did they perhaps imagine me wearing my pinny and brandishing a rolling pin, like Hilda Ogden? Or with cleavage a-popping and a warm apple pie on my lap, a la Nigella?

In any event the show, which focused on Government plans to push GM food back on to the marketplace, was an all-male affair, with the Soil Association's Patrick Holden isolated in a remote studio in Bristol while three pro-GM pundits (two in the studio, one on film) made their case.

The media's renewed interest in GM has been sparked by comments apparently made by departing chief scientific adviser Sir David King, to the effect that the public's attitude to GM is 'softening' and that acceptance of GM is now necessary and unavoidable if we are going to feed the world in the future. His successor John Beddington agrees.

The latter point is based on a widely held, but erroneous, assumption that people go hungry because we don’t produce enough food. In fact, the UN estimates that we produce about one and a half times the amount we need to feed the entire world. People go hungry because of the unsustainable structure of our political and economic systems. They starve because of the free market, where everything goes to the highest bidder rather than to those who need it most.

The former point was worrying, though. Was the public going soft on GM? If anyone would know, our supermarkets – all of which retain market research that can predict what you will have for breakfast next Tuesday – would. We phoned around. All said they have no plans to introduce a GM 'choice' because there is no consumer demand.

The push is on, however, to create that demand, and the best argument our politicians can muster is the scientific equivalent of 'where's the harm?'. They can say truthfully that they have never seen any data showing that eating GM is harmful to humans, because, of course, the research has never been done. But lack of evidence does not equal evidence of safety. Indeed, from a scientific perspective, GM breaks every sacred tenet of science.

Where are the double-blind, randomised, controlled human trials – and especially those involving pregnant women and children, the ones most likely to be harmed by the toxins present in GM foods? The animal data is truly frightening, showing sterility and increased neonatal deaths; not to mention cancer, systemic organ failures and allergic reactions. Why would any government sanction such madness?

The push for GM isn't because it will increase crop yield, or because it will reduce pesticide use, or because it will provide more nutritious food - GM delivers none of these things. The push for GM is about money. Indeed, David King suggests that by not embracing GM food our economy has already ‘lost’ between GBP2 billion and GBP4 billion – a figure that appears to have been plucked out of thin air (see News, page 8).

And honestly, what is this piddling amount of money (roughly equivalent to eBay's annual turnover, or that of the video games industry) held up next to the GBP9 billion being spent on the Olympics, the GBP100 billion we will be spending on the nuclear weapons programme over the next 50 years or the GBP135 billion our Government spends in procurement of everything from paperclips to fuel?

The GM push is a short-term gamble on the future value of our 'knowledge economy' - our ability to generate profit by selling ideas to other (usually poorer) countries as a 'solution' to their problems – never mind the long-term cost to biodiversity and human health.

Over the next few years you are going to be bombarded with a lot of stage-managed information about things such as GM, nuclear power and incinerators (see stories pages 28 and 44). This PR onslaught is the action of a Government that has been near-paralysed by the sheer scale and complexity of the problems we face, and as a result has resorted to PR instead of policies to 'fix' things. It’s going to take people of character, intelligence and tenacity to keep saying no - and mean it.

Now, where exactly did I put my rolling pin...?

UK Chief Scientist gets his GM facts wrong

http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8721

(From GM Watch)

Professor David King has appeared in the UK Media on several occasions recently putting forward the view that genetically modified crops are essential tools to tackle future population-driven food shortages, as well as misrepresenting the potential benefits of GM crops. On the BBC's Today Programme on 27 November he cited a number of examples:

-Plant pheromones used to attract pests away from maize crops on the shores of Lake Victoria in Kenya;

-Removal of food allergies, for example gluten from wheat; and

-The development of drought tolerant crops.

Unfortunately for Professor King, all of these proved to be poor examples to use.

-The project by Lake Victoria is not in fact a GM crop at all but a trial in companion planting.

-The removal of gluten from wheat would render it very poor for bread making, and sufferers of gluten allergies would still have to be very careful to avoid the non-GM wheat that would still be on the market. The Government's GM Science review, which Professor King chaired, was realistic about the chances of reducing the risks to people who are allergic to peanuts: 'Efforts to remove the allergen from peanuts would be beneficial to a substantial fraction of the population whose sensitivity to the protein can expose them to life threatening situations and work to this end is underway (Bannon et al.2001). Although this would be beneficial, it is not simple to achieve. Peanut contains potentially more than 20 allergenic proteins. The removal of one or two of them are unlikely to make the peanut safe to eat for all peanut allergy sufferers.'

See: www.gmsciencedebate.org.uk/report/pdf/gmsci-report1-pt3.pdf

In addition, people would have to be very wary about non-GM allergenic peanuts that would still be on the market.

-Professor King was also guilty of exaggerating the progress made in developing GM drought tolerant crops, which is proving difficult. Professor King's optimism is not shared by Professor Ossama El-Tayeb, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Industrial Biotechnology at the University of Cairo:

'I read with interest and respect Friderike Oehler's message (nr. 56) and fully appreciate her concerns and am similarly convinced of the potential of 'alternatives'. I wish to add that transgenicity for drought tolerance and other environmental stresses (or, for that matter, biological nitrogen fixation) are too complex to be attainable in the foreseeable future, taking into consideration our extremely limited knowledge of biological systems and how genetic/metabolic functions operate. Those who propagate the ideas that any biological function could be genetically manipulated are optimists who are probably victims of a consortium of 'arrogant' scientists and greedy business who have strong control on policy making and the media.

Having said that, I feel we should not lose hope of reaching such noble goals and should continue to fund such research whose fruits may be reaped by a future generation. These goals have been used by the proponents of currently available genetically modified organisms (GMOs) under the control of big business, who propose that GM crops will alleviate poverty soon while in fact currently available ones mostly contribute negatively to poverty alleviation and food security and positively to the stock market. The holders of intellectual property rights for present day GM crops keep teasing us about the potential of GMOs resistant to abiotic stresses and the like while doing nothing about developing such crops for this generation. These are simply not easily exploitable in a business market and are accordingly not on their agenda. Basic research in this area is being funded almost exclusively by public funds.'

See: www.fao.org/biotech/logs/C14/280307.htm