Printer Friendly Page
Damagae
to Health and Environment from GMOs
Fr. Sean McDonagh,
SSC
The
new U.S. ambassador to the Holy See, Francis Rooney, is continuing
the campaign of his predecessor, James Nicholson, to get the Vatican to endorse genetically engineered foods. In his first
audience with Pope Benedict XV1 he repeated the same line as Nicholson
- that there is a “moral imperative’ to investigate the
possible benefits of ( biotech) agricultural technology to the world’s
hungry.
Nicholson
organized a seminar on the same theme in the Gregorian University in conjunction with the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in September 2004.
All the speakers were avidly pro-biotech agriculture, which if it becomes
widespread will make trillions of dollars for U.S. biotech companies.
Speaking from the floor at that seminar I reminded Ambassador
Nicholson that the main problem facing agriculture in the next 40 years
is global warming. Glaciers like those in the Himalayas and Andes are melting causing major problems for rivers such
as the Ganges, the Indus, the Bramaputra, the Mekong and the Yangtze. These rivers help irrigate crops for one third of humanity.
I reminded the ambassador that
his country had not signed the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gas emissions.
Furthermore, the U.S. also refused to sign the United Nations Convention
on Biodiversity. All agriculture depends on robust biodiversity and,
finally, the U.S. had not signed the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.
Given this serious level of irresponsibility by the U.S. government I find their concern for ‘feeding the world’
spurious. It also overlooks the
major problems that GMOs can cause to human health and the environment.
GMO
soy affects posterity
On October 10, 2005 during a seminar on genetic modification
organized by the National Association for Genetic Security (NAGs) Irina
Ermakova, who has a doctorate in biology, made public the results of
research which she had been conducting at the Institute of Higher Nervous
Activity and Neurophysiology of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS).
This is the first research that determined some clear relationship between
eating genetically modified soya and the posterity of living creatures.
During the experiment Ermakova added GM soya
flour to the food of female rats two weeks before conception, during
conception and during nurturing. In the control group were the female
rats who received no additions to their food. The experiment was formed
by 3 groups of rats with 3 female rats in each group. The first group
was the control group; the second group was the one where the rats received
and addition of GM soy, and the third group received non-GM soy. The
scientists counted the number of females who gave birth, the number
of rats born and the number of rats that died. The researchers found
that there was an abnormally high level of deaths among rats that were
born to females who had received GM soy in their food. In addition 36%
of rats born to such mothers weighed less than 20 grams. In other words
they were in an extremely poor condition.
Because the morphology and biochemical structures of
rats are similar to humans this makes the results very disturbing according
to Dr. Ermakova. It also places an onus on public authorities to engage
in full scale tests of GM-products before they are made available to
human beings or animals that humans will eat.
In a lecture to scientists in New Delhi on November 7, 2005 Dr. Arpad Pusztai summed up the position on the potential
dangers to human health from GE crops. He claimed that so far only a
few animal studies had been completed. He alleged that the industry’s
and regulator’s preferred “safety assessment” are based on poorly defined
and not legally binding concept of “substantial equivalence”. In such
a situation it is difficult to conclude that GM foods are safe.
[i]
The well known Canadian scientist and
broadcaster, David Suzuki takes the same approach. In April 2005 he
told journalists that, anyone that says ‘Oh, we know that this is
perfectly safe,’ I say is either unbelievably stupid or deliberately
lying. The reality is we don’t know. The experiments simply haven’t
been done and we are now becoming the guinea pigs. [ii]
Gene flow does
take place
In recent years many
biotech scientists and regulators often dismissed the possibility of
genetically engineered crops becoming superweeds. They also argued that
‘gene flow’ which involves the transfer of genes from transgenic plants
to a weedy relative, would seldom take place. Opponents of genetic engineering
have always argued that if a herbicide resistant gene jumped to a genetically
engineered plant to a wild weedy relative, that plant might become resistant
to the particular herbicide. This form of genetic pollution could easily
become a major nuisance to farmers worldwide.
In July 2005 the
British Government published on an obscure website details of how genes
from a genetically engineered oilseed rape ( Brassica napus) had transferred
to wild relatives in farm trials. The study was conducted by the Centre for Ecology
and Hydrology, a government research centre at Winfrith in Dorset. The researcher
found a GE version of the common weed charlock (Sinapis Arvensis) in
a field where GE oilseed rape had been grown for the past two years. They also found that resistance was transferred
to field mustard at a farm in Shropshire. The transfer to
field mustard was always on the cards as they are close relatives but
the transfer to charlock came as a surprise as it is only distantly
related to oilseed rape. Charlock
is also a very common plant so the fact that pesticide-resistant gene
was passed to charlock is a cause for real concern. The fear now is
that if GE oilseed rape is grown commercially pollen from contaminated
plants could spread throughout the country leading to the growth of
plants which are immune to certain herbicides. The danger is very real.
In 2003 research conducted for the British government found that oilseed
rape pollen could travel over 16 miles; this is 6 times what was previously
believed. Furthermore, charlock seeds can remain in the ground for 20
to 30 years before they germinate.
According to English
Nature, the government wildlife watchdog, a single herbicide
resistant weed in several million could inexorably take over British
farmlands In such a scenario farmers would have to use
more chemicals and more nasty ones to control the plant. This would contradict one of the arguments presented
by those who favour GE plants that they involve the use of less pesticides.
It would also mean
that co-existence between GE and organic plants would be impossible
in a country like Britain or Ireland. Within a few years
all the organic plants would be affected by GE pollen. This would have
a devastating impact on conventional and organic farmers. Speaking at
a seminar organised by Consumers International (CI) in Bologna, Italy, David Cuming advised:
all countries worldwide must introduce
strict rules to prevent contamination,
and allow for GM-freed zones, before allowing GMOs in their countries.
The EU must wait until they have completed the full review of ‘coexistence’
in Europe before approving new GMO crops.[iii]
At the same conference
Professor Ignacio Chapela said that he believed that coexistence was
biologically impossible. For him it is not a question whether it will
happen, it is a question of when and how much. We
do not have the political will, the technical capacity or the independence
of thought to deal with ‘co-existence’; neither to monitor its development,
nor to remedy its consequence. Proposed biosafety and bioethical frameworks
will not prevent contamination. [iv]
The above research
also revealed a disturbing unwillingness on behalf of the British government
to protect the British environment from genetic pollution. Despite the knowledge about the pollution of
common charlock by GE oilseed rape the UK Environment Minister, Elliot
Morley, attempted at the European Union earlier in July to get France and Greece to lift its ban
on oilseed rape. The Minister justified his action by saying that he
was voting in line with the best available scientific evidence despite
the fact that his own department was in possession of data which confirmed
the risk of genes escaping from GE oilseed rape.
Hopefully,
these findings will put the nail in the coffin of GE oilseed rape since
previous government sponsored studies have found that it is seriously
damaging to biodiversity.
Widespread Contamination of
Papaya Crop by GE Varieties
Researchers in Hawaii in September 2004
reported widespread contamination of traditional stock from the world’s
first commercially planted genetically engineered tree, the papaya.
This took place on Oahu, the large island and Kauai. Contamination was
also found in the stock of non-genetically engineered seeds being sold
commercially by the University of Hawaii. Dozens of outraged farmers, consumers and backyard
growers brought the contaminated stock back to the university and demanded
that the University of Hawaii come up with realistic
plan for cleaning up this papaya contamination. The protesters also
called for liability protection for local growers and the prevention
of GMO contamination of other commodity crops which are grown in Hawaii. [v]
Speaking in New Delhi in November 2005 Dr. Arpad Pusztai
pointed out that a review carried out by Wolfanberger and Phifer and
published in Science in 2000 concluded that the most pertinent
questions on the environmental safety of GM crops have not been asked
for, let alone studied. [vi]
