Note: Don't miss out on the essential read at the end of this newsletter to complete your organic advantage!
Note: If you have trouble reading this newsletter, Click here to view it in the Organic Advantage Archives

AGRIBUSINESS: European leaders 'pro-GM' concern

Documents leaked to media and reported by British newspaper ‘The Independent’ last month revealed European leaders could be looking to speed up the introduction of GM crops and foods.

Records of a series of private meetings reportedly stated government representatives from 27 countries believed “something had to be done to ‘deal with’ public resistance to GM” and allow its more rapid uptake.

Currently, public opposition has halted modified crops from being grown in Britain.

The meetings were convened by Jose Manuel Barroso, the pro-GM President of the European Commission, and chaired by his head of cabinet, Joao Vale de Almeida.

The membership of the group, its objectives and its outcomes, have not been made public.
 

According to ‘The Independent’ interest in GM has been fuelled by claims from the Biotech industry that GM will be necessary to feed the world.

Discussion reportedly focused on how to speed up the introduction of GM crops and food, and how to persuade the public to accept them.

The GM debate continues

The news comes as the GM debate continues to gain momentum.

Proponents of genetic modification applied to food plants say GM could decrease poverty in developing countries by getting crops to grow in arid or harsh agricultural conditions.

They say health benefits are possible, with those involved in projects like ‘golden rice’ - a rice variety containing GM modified elevated vitamin A levels – claiming it could reduce blindness and childhood mortality worldwide.

But if the arguments for GM can start to sound convincing, the arguments against it are chilling.

“Genetically modified crops fail to deliver benefits,” announced ‘Friends of the Earth’ (FOE) International Chairs from Malaysia and Nigeria in the last year.
 
“Despite GM being touted as a ‘magic bullet’ in the past decade, our research has shown GM crops  commercialized in the last decade have done nothing to tackle hunger  (they are predominantly grown to feed animals rather than humans) and have not improved the livelihoods of the small-scale farmers, or reduced pesticide use,” the organisation stated.

“GM crops have often performed worse than conventional varieties in countries including India, Indonesia, Brazil and Paraguay.

“In recent years, small farmers in China have earned more planting conventional cotton than the Bt variety, and in India and Indonesia many small farmers have suffered from the agronomic failure of Bt cotton.”

FOE say contrary to reports by associations like the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), small growers’ experiences with GM have not been positive.

In 2005, ISAAA claimed 6.4 million Chinese farmers benefited from Bt cotton. According to FOE research (by the Cornell University), far from improving farmers lives, those using Bt cotton could expect to witness the slow emergence of secondary pests.

“Bt technology indirectly creates a safer environment for the growth of non-bollworm pests. Entomologists have suggested that it takes between five to ten years for such a secondary pest population to grow to a level at which it poses a significant economic threat.

“If secondary pests are not adequately taken into consideration, new technologies like Bt cotton will only serve to exacerbate problems associated with poverty and scarcity.”

They say monoculture is also an issue – with GM soybean expansion in South America one example.

“It will increase deforestation in areas such as the Amazon, displace poor rural families and reduce food security as crops for domestic consumption are replaced by export-oriented soybean monocultures.”

Currently a limited number of large corporations dominate the GM market, producing a narrow range of GM crops that only a few countries traditionally cultivated.

Soybeans, maize, cotton and canola now represent almost all of the world’s GM crop acreage, most engineered for herbicide tolerance or insect resistance.

“In short,” FOE concludes, “GM has not proven superior to existing conventional crops”.

Why organic can help

When it comes to developing nations it seems organic can drive poverty reduction faster.

The United Nations last month presented a study which found organic farming offered Africa the “best chance” of breaking out of decades-old cycles of poverty and malnutrition.

The research conducted by the UN Environment Programme suggested organic, small-scale farming could deliver increased yields once thought only industrial farming could deliver, and reverse environmental and social damage.

An analysis of 114 projects in 24 African countries found that yields had more than doubled where organic, or near-organic practices had been used. That increase in yield jumped to 128 per cent in East Africa.
The study found that organic practices returned strong environmental benefits.

“90 per cent of studies showed that organic or near organic agriculture had benefits for soil fertility; water control; improved water tables, carbon sequestration and biodiversity - this allowed farmers to extend the growing season in marginal areas,” said UNEP (United Nations Environmental Programme).

And the research highlighted the role organic learning could play in educating and empowering African growers.

“Because organic agriculture is more knowledge intensive it has lead to improvements in education, community bonds and cooperation for market access.”

And perhaps most importantly – it found organic returns were available to everyone.

“Higher incomes back to small farmers occurred as a result of not having to buy fertilizers and pesticides; and higher prices were paid back to growers through certification schemes for both export and domestic markets.

“Close to 90 per cent of cases showed increase in farm and household incomes."

 UNEP said essentially, organic or near-organic agriculture is ideally suited for marginalized smallholder farmers.

“It moves toward a whole systems approach to farming that is more diverse and resistant to stress."

For more visit original press release UNEP: http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=548&ArticleID=5957&l=en

Read FOE's full report 'Who Benefits from GM?' at : http://www.foei.org/en/publications/

HEALTH:  GM 'Super-food' claims a farce, says Australian scientist

GM foods are launching into a new realm – human health.

Two new so-called ‘super-foods’ are the latest in a total list of just three GM food products claiming to improve health which have passed preliminary research stages.

A purple tomato has been crossed with snapdragon genes to reportedly boost levels of the anthocyanins antioxidants in mice.

And a GM soya bean has been found high in long chain omega3 acids (chiefly found in oily fish) which proponents claim may stop heart attacks.

The two join ‘Golden rice’ - a genetically-modified rice variety for elevated vitamin A levels - in the engineered ‘high health’ line-up.

Still in earlier stages of investigation are edible vaccines in GM bananas, and anti-clotting in GM goat’s milk.
What’s going wrong with GM health claims?

Dr. Maarten Stapper, former scientist with the CSIRO, says there is a reason so few ‘super-foods’ have reached this preliminary stage with none released for public use. 

“The GM industry has been making promises for thirty years on better food but at the moment GM food released is still modified only at a production level for herbicide tolerance, and insect and disease resistance.

“Essentially, it’s because with so many genes interacting with outside factors it is incredibly difficult to produce something that will stand up under vigorous testing with regards to health.

He says consumers have every right to be wary about ingesting GM food.

“In the peer-reviewed science literature there is yet to be a long-term animal feeding study on GM food products that spans several generations.

“That is incredibly important – we need to see the impact of GM on embryos and in young and developing bodies. Those aspects have not been checked.

Dr. Stapper says we can get better quality food by going back to the basics – decreasing chemical use and restoring nutrient density and quality – with more research than ever arriving to prove it.

This year, a review which looked at forty studies from the past six years comparing organic and non-organic foods found organic did indeed deliver more essential nutrients per calories consumed.

Organic plant based foods were on average 25% more nutrient dense, containing more of the health inducing polyphenols, flavonoids and antioxidants, linked to the prevention of cardiovascular disease, cancer, and osteoporosis. 
 
“Plants grown in biologically active, healthy soil, have more roots, grow better, extract more minerals and build up better nutrition than plants supported by artificial fertilisers or genetic engineering,” says Dr. Stapper.

He says despite all hypothetical claims, the GM industry hasn’t come up with the goods yet.

“GM claims of better human health, improved fruit quality, GM grass for better digestibility for animals and so on are all nonsense – we can get that already.

“Change to a healthy soil and biological management alters the expression of genes in current varieties in amazing ways.

“Organic farmers see their cattle grazing for half the time they used to because they have higher minerals in the grass and organic cows produce high quality, highly nutritious milk.

“Animals become healthier when feeding on healthy plants from healthy soils.

“And healthy plants are more than capable right now of providing all the antioxidants and flavonoids we need.

He says isolating genes away from the bigger ‘whole plant’ picture is dangerous.

“GM puts a certain gene from a different species into a host and creates new proteins that have never been in existence before.

“The molecular structures of these proteins are then compared with the molecular structures of known allergens and the safety of the GM food is worked out on that basis.

“But these techniques do not take into account the way the protein is structured in the produce. 

“For example, a GM pea which originally was pronounced non–allergenic and ‘substantially equivalent’ with non-GM peas, was found to be allergenic for mice when actually tested with a new experimental technique.

“Scientists found when testing the structure of the molecule taking into account the sugars in the product around it, that it was the combination of a sugar and the new protein that made it allergenic.

He says theoretic ‘GM safety’ is not based on real life. 

“By far the easiest way forward is to work with what we already have available to us in nature.”

He says that does not involve “going back to the dark ages - as many scientists want us to believe”.

“With our incredible current knowledge we can improve on the food production of the past without relying on synthetic fertilisers, chemicals and GM, but recognising and learning to use the powers of nature. 

“Such systems have already proven productive and healthy by innovative farmers.”