food security

GM Crop Information

KMAadmin — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 06:52:24 -0600

When GM crops and foods were first introduced in the late 1990s, some scientists raised concerns that genetic modification was imprecise and unpredictable and could result in harm to health and the environment. They warned that:

GM could create foods that are toxic, allergenic and less nutritious than their non-GM counterparts
GM crops could damage vulnerable wild plant and animal populations
GM plants cannot be recalled, but as living organisms will propagate, transmitting any damaging properties from generation to generation
GM crops could cause irreversible alterations to the food supply, with serious consequences for the environment and human and animal health.

Subsequent events and a growing body of scientific evidence have shown each of these concerns to be valid but the biotech industry and its supporters have engaged in a global PR, marketing and lobbying campaign to promote this technology in order to undermine the concerns and attack those raising them.

GM information

GMWatch sends out regular bulletins that provide news and comment on GM foods and crops, with particular emphasis on exposing the PR behind the global push for GM technology.
Spinprofiles documents the PR and propaganda activities of PR firms engaged in managing and manipulating public perception, opinion and policy. SpinProfiles also includes profiles on think tanks, front groups funded by industry and "industry-friendly experts" who work to influence public opinion and public policy on behalf of corporations or other special interests.
Greenpeace International Genetic Engineering Campaign has details on the latest campaigns with easy and quick-to-do email actions to help keep food supplies free from GM contamination.
Friends of the Earth International is the place to find details on the latest FoE global campaigns and downloadable reports on GM food and crops.
Biosafety Information Centre, run by the Third World Network, has information and downloadable briefing papers on biosafety problems with GM crops and foods worldwide.
Bioscience Resource Project has science stories on GM crops and food. Includes critiques of corporate 'junk' science, exposures of conflicts of interest, and news on the persecution of whistleblowers.
Ban GM Food is a campaign-oriented website geared to Europe. It has details of how to take action and downloadable leaflets that people can print out at home and distribute. Emphasis is on scientifically accurate and well-referenced information.
GM Contamination RegisterBecause no official body is keeping track of GM contamination events worldwide, GeneWatch UK and Greenpeace have stepped into the gap with this up-to-date register.
Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Application of Science and Technology is a group of scientists and medics who campaign for a ban on GM foods.
Will GM crops deliver benefits to farmers? is an informative web page on farmers' experiences and agronomic research on GM crops.
EcoNexus "offers a rigorous scientific critique of genetic engineering (GE) and genetically modified organisms, and more recently of agrofuels (biofuels), synthetic biology and other new technological applications".
ISIS – Institute of Science in Society is the place to go for science in the service of social and environmental sustainability. This website and the associated print magazine, Science in Society, frequently break news about new insights and developments that take years to become widely accepted knowledge.
Ban Terminator Terminator Technology is an unpopular development in GM that makes GM crops produce sterile seeds. This website has news about the research and worldwide campaigns against Terminator.

KM & Communications

Risk analysis of genetically engineered plants

storytelling — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 05:19:46 -0600

A report by Testbiotech e.V. Institute for Independent Impact Assessment in Biotechnology
Authors: Christoph Then, Christof Potthof October 2009

Summary points compiled by GMWatch

GM food safety testing

European Food Safety Authority's (EFSA) concept of risk assessment of genetically modified (GM) plants is essentially based upon guidelines that were developed by the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) as early as 1993 on the assumption that the risks posed by GM plants are the same as those posed by conventional plants.
But the differences between conventional breeding and genetic engineering of plants are becoming clearer in the light of current genome research. Experience gained from conventional breeding cannot be applied to GM plants.
Changes in the activity of plant genes in the genetic engineering process are not an expression of natural gene regulation but an indication of disruption.
The outdated risk assessment methods for GM plants mean that their safety, predictability and controllability are not examined properly in the approvals procedure.
GM plants are tested much more superficially than irradiated food, pesticides, chemicals and medicines. To prove the safety of radiated food, for example, feeding trials were conducted on mice, rats, dogs, monkeys and even humans. Feeding trials were performed over several years to investigate growth, carcinogenicity and effects on reproduction. GM plants have undergone no such investigations.
Overall the risk assessment process for GM plants as defined by the EFSA does not even meet the requirements of the EU for comprehensive testing. It replaces actual risk testing by a system of assumptions.
More and more cases are being documented showing that independent risk research is being hampered. In many cases it is not even possible to access necessary testing materials. Even the publication of findings is being obstructed.
Society, politicians, and approval boards should no longer close their eyes to the fact that GM technology uses methods that are largely outdated and riskier than was originally thought. It is not the fear of new products that make a critical appraisal of GM technology necessary, but rather the fact that its scientific principles have been called more and more into question by new findings.
More than ten years after the first commercial cultivation of GM plants, there is no generally agreed perception about the risks posed by those plants or about how to conduct proper risk assessment.
The concept of 'substantial equivalence' (the assumption that a GM plant is substantially equivalent to its non-GM counterpart) was introduced by the OECD in 1993 and has come under harsh criticism from scientists. However, it is still seen as the starting point for the EFSA's risk assessment, thereby influencing its outcome.
Even in cases when significant differences between transgenic plants and their counterparts are observed, they are mostly dismissed by the EFSA as being not of "biological significance" – without attempts to verify or further investigate these differences to detect unintended effects.
The EFSA does not think that feeding trials with GM plants (or derived food and feed) are necessary.
GM plants of complex makeup cannot be assessed by analysing some of their isolated components, as is habitually done by industry in its own testing of its GM plants. Testing of whole GM plants is especially necessary on the new generation of GM crops, which have several 'stacked' GM traits. But feeding trials using whole transgenic plants are not required by EFSA.
Scientists point out that testing should be extended to include whole-plant/whole-food testing in both toxicity and allergenicity studies in order to more reliably detect unintended and detrimental effects of genetic modification.
These arguments are not followed by the EFSA. EFSA only suggests more detailed investigations in connection with products such as Golden Rice (where market authorization has not yet been applied for). According to the EFSA the metabolism of these plants can be regarded as being changed on several levels, so feeding trials with whole plants should be performed in order to avoid negative health effects. In this argument, EFSA contradicts the position of the Golden Rice team. But EFSA at the same time assumes that transgenic plants where approval for commercialisation is currently being applied for should be seen as harbouring only minor risks. EFSA does not consider feeding trials to be necessary even in the case of stacked events.
EFSA states, incorrectly, that one introduced gene produces one gene product, with no other knock-on effects on the plant: "The current generation of GM plants cultivated for commercial purposes has been modified through the introduction of one or a few genes coding for herbicide tolerance, insect resistance or a combination of these traits. In these plants the genetic insert leads to the production of a gene product, which does not interfere with the overall metabolism of the plant cell, and does not alter the composition of the GM plant except for the introduced trait." The truth is that genes interact with each other in complex ways and their function is defined by the environment.
Risks to human health of products such as radiated food, pesticides and pharmaceuticals have to be investigated to prove their safety without anything being presumed. But in the case of GM plants the risks first have to be proven before detailed investigations are made. The approach chosen by the EFSA turns around the burden of proof: GM plants are assumed to be safe until the opposite is proven.
Just how much the science of GM has moved on from the outdated assumptions made by EFSA is clear from the patent applications of companies such as Monsanto. Here's Monsanto's patent application WO2004053055, which claims unintended effects(!) in GM plants: "Nonetheless, the frequency of success of enhancing the transgenic plant is low due to a number of factors including the low predictability of the effects of a specific gene on the plant's growth, development and environmental response, the low frequency of maize transformation, the lack of highly predictable control of the gene once introduced into the genome, and other undesirable effects of the transformation event and tissue culture process."

KM, Emerging Technologies and Innovative Schemes

How boosting smallholder farming can ease hunger and reduce poverty at the household level in southern Africa

KMAadmin — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 02:40:48 -0600

This policy brief looks at the factors constraining the productivity of smallholder farmers to achieve food security for poor households and communities, as a contribution to poverty eradication in southern Africa. The brief examines the characteristics of the region in terms of poverty, the state of food security in the region, and current factors that limit smallholder farmers’ capacity to produce more food in a sustainable way. It also identifies key policy areas for attention and makes recommendations to address policy gaps.

Information Provided by the Southern Africa Trust Website

KM & Social Challenges