"GM agriculture is not sustainable
BBC spoke to Lorna Haynes, head of the School of Systems Engineering at the Universidad de los Andes, Merida, Venezuela and coordinator Rapala-VE (Action Network for Alternatives to Pesticides of Venezuela) on risks the cultivation of GM and some of the "myths" circulating about this controversial topic.
What is GM food?
The "transgenic" or genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are new bodies created in the laboratory, whose characteristics have been altered by inserting genes from other species, which gives them new inheritable characteristics.
foods called "transgenic" are foods whose production has used a GM. You can be the body itself and in the case of corn, or GM-derived food such as: the "meat" and transgenic soybean oil, the cornflakes produced using transgenic corn products obtained from animals fed with GM products, among others.
Could occur naturally those that cause genetic experiments?
is known of the spontaneous transfer of genetic material between micro-organisms such as bacteria and viruses. There is no known natural way, for example, human genes are inserted into the rice genome, or genes of salmon in it for the pope, but, through genetic engineering, genes can be transferred to any species any other species.
How does a foreign gene into the rest of the genome?
not know. It is emphasized that the science of genetics is in its infancy and not know much about the consequences of genetic manipulation.
(...) They are not being funded, independent research on possible long-term effects
In fact, it is not introducing a single gene: the current state of technology, in addition to the gene associated with characteristic you want to enter, it introduces other promoters and marker genes. Unable to control or predict how many of these combinations of genes are inserted, or where it will be located on chromosomes, or whether they will be stable. Genes interact. Depending on where you "fall off" the transgenes, could lead to silencing other genes, in which case it would be expressed normal characteristics of the organism, or its expression may change.
genes that encode proteins, constitute a small part of our DNA, about 4%. Until recently, most scientists, so unscientific, dismissed as "junk DNA" the rest of the DNA (96%) but in light of new discoveries of segments shared by many species, it is believed that perform vital. The fact remains that foreign genes could exert impacts on these functions.
What are the real risks of genetic pollution?
When pollinate GM crops non-GM crops, the "genetically polluted" and their seeds become trans-genetic hybrid. It is generally accepted that it is impossible to avoid genetic contamination and therefore non-GM crops and GM can not co-exist. Genetic contamination of crops is irreversible, uncontrollable and means that the seeds of transgenic crops will thus be lost, forever, the option and the right to use GM-free food.
think it is unacceptable that regulators make decisions based on the results of short-term studies designed and by the same corporations seeking authorization to produce and market their GM products.
In Mexico, the center of origin and diversity of maize, many traditional varieties of corn and are contaminated with transgenic Bt corn which is an irreversible loss of this heritage of humanity, single source for the development of new varieties. In a pilot study in the U.S. samples of supposedly non-GM crops, genetic contamination was found in 50% of the samples of corn and soybeans, and 100% of the samples of rapeseed.
Genetic contamination with herbicide tolerance genes from wild relatives and crops can lead to super-weeds difficult to remove. It is genetically modifying crops to produce drugs (contraceptives, vaccines, hormones, nas, etc..) Products and industrial interest (oil, etc.) Can not rule out the risk that genetically contaminated crops crops intended for human consumption, or entering the food chain through error or negligence (as in the case of Starlink corn) producing food contaminated with chemicals or other substances for industrial use.
Will they change the nutritional properties of food? According to the companies
promoters GM GM crops are "substantially equivalent" to non-GM crops and claim that its composition in terms of carbohydrates, oils and other substances does not differ significantly between the two types of crops.
should be emphasized that genetic science is in its infancy and do not know much about the consequences of genetic manipulation
But when it comes to patent these crops, enterprises show the opposite: they are essentially different requirement for patent , and in fact the case. All GM crops produce new proteins that have never been part of the diet and can cause allergies and other diseases. In addition, due to new interactions between genes, (the answer to your question # 3) could alter the production of nutrients and anti-nutrients in the plant to remove, reduce or increase the activity of the respective associated genes.
There are also specific effects associated with the introduced trait. Remember that in the global commercial production of GM crops, dominated by two features: herbicide tolerance (77%) and resistance to pests (15%) and 7% had both. In the first case, increases the use of herbicide and apply it directly to the culture to consume. In the second, GMOs are, in themselves, pesticides, since they are genetically to produce insecticidal toxins throughout the plant which is then consumed but has not demonstrated long-term safety.
Do we have enough information to determine the effects of GMOs on the human body?
No, because almost not being funded, independent research on possible long-term effects and risk reports are not appropriate monitoring. For example, viruses, bacteria and their genetic material are the tools of genetic engineering. It has been shown that DNA sequences often go untouched by the digestive system and can be assimilated by human gut bacteria so there is the possibility of horizontal transfer of transgenes viruses and bacteria to create new pathogens and diseases. Although it is believed that this possibility is remote, should be investigated. We can not decouple
environmental health. Impacts has been found that highlight the need to inquire more about the ecosystem effects of throwing billions of organisms into the environment. For example, transgenic corn pollen (Bt) is toxic to certain beneficial insects and exudates from the roots are toxic to some soil microorganisms.
The presence of Bt toxins in the culture inhibits the decomposition of organic matter that is a segment of the global carbon cycle. Thus, it could trigger a cascade of events cascade affecting the ecological balance.
What is your opinion on these possible effects and on what basis his arguments?
think it is unacceptable that regulators make decisions based on the results of short-term studies designed and conducted by the same corporations seeking authorization to produce and market their GM products.
Solving the problem of hunger is subject to the population increase beyond the sustainable production capacity to feed and requires the adoption of a sustainable agricultural model for low external inputs.
is the responsibility of States to require and fund independent studies investigate the impacts on health and the environment in the long term. The British Medical Association, the National Research Council of the United States and other prestigious institutions have highlighted the need for such studies. Meanwhile, scientific ethics and social responsibility requires us to apply the precautionary principle and ban the use and environmental release of GMOs in food.
The Convention on Biological Diversity and the Cartagena Protocol, signed by more than 150 countries, recognizes the potential risks inherent in genetically modified organisms (GMOs) on biodiversity and health impacts and socio-economic and, in the absence of scientific data, down to apply the precautionary approach.
Norman Borlaug, father of the Green Revolution of the 50 and 60 in favor of these foods as an alternative to the world's food needs and overexploitation of the environment. Without the GM, can we feed the world in the future without burning natural reserves we have left?
with the respect they deserve Mr. Borlaug, I disagree because his argument is based on two myths:
1) The false premise that the problem of hunger will be solved with more food.
The same was said to justify the Green Revolution, through which productivity in agriculture increased 4 times but 17 times more use of agrochemicals and fertilizers. However, the poverty level increased from 40% to 80% and we know that malnutrition and hunger accompany poverty.
If someone tells you that genetic engineering will feed the world, tell them you will not. To feed the world, it requires political will and financial, is not just production and distribution of Steve Smith, director of the biotechnology company Novartis, the British newspaper The Guardian in August 2000
Between 1940 and 1975 nutrient content vegetables fell by up to 75% as a result of this production model agrochemical and to develop varieties only in terms of the characteristics required by industrial agriculture. Currently, it produces more food than necessary to feed the world but, for example, 40% of the corn crop goes to feed, so it is not simply a matter of producing more food. The same corporations that use these arguments "humanitarian" in their propaganda, so they know.
2) The erroneous assumption that GM agriculture will increase productivity.
Studies show that transgenic crops yield more than natural, can be more polluting and introduce new risks.
Productivity is not a "feature" of a plant associated with a single gene whose inclusion can give this feature. Therefore not subject to development by companies, and that its policy is to focus on traits that "are controlled by a single gene it is what is economically feasible and that can be developed in less time" (Statements of Dupont executive at the meeting REDBIO, Caracas, Venezuela in December. 2003)
Solving the problem of hunger is subject to the population increase beyond the sustainable production capacity to feed and requires the adoption of a sustainable agricultural model low external input. Much of the problem is that the food system is in the hands of a few transnational corporations control the food supply from seed to product. For example, Monsanto produces 91% of GM seeds and its partner Cargill processes and sells the majority of soybeans and grains worldwide, Syngenta, a world leader in agrochemicals, third largest producer of seed after Monsanto and Dupont, is associated with Archer Daniels Midland, another global leader in processing and marketing agricultural products. The interest and rationale of these corporations is not necessarily solve problems of hunger, but to profit by promoting non-sustainable agro-industrial model that is their source of profit.
52 countries have specific regulations on this matter and in some cases, such as the European Union, the rules are quite strict (The Green Group of the European Parliament even voted against the bill passed in 2001). Why do you say that there is no clear and strict regulations now in any country over genetically modified food?
In my communication with BBC World on your comments
geneticist, said: "She refers to strict rules when, in most countries, there are no rules nor infrastructure to deploy in the event that they had."
not just about "specific regulations." Argentina has specific regulations and is flooded with genetically modified soy to comply with its regulations. Brazil banned GM but it turned out that most of the 2003 soybean crop was contaminated by GM soy. In contrast, the European Union enjoys one of the most stringent regulatory systems in the world but has its flaws.
The purpose of regulating the use of GMOs should be to prevent risk but requires an appropriate management system and infrastructure to ensure compliance. The European Union itself, with all its scientific, financial, human and technological imposed a moratorium for 5 years precisely because it was considered regulations was not appropriate nor necessary infrastructure to implement them. Creating such
biosafety framework is a huge cost to the underdeveloped countries and means to divert resources from urgent national projects. Given the huge investments required, the lack of knowledge on the subject and powerful interests promoting GMOs, there is a risk that is created weak and lax regulations. But the problem of genetic contamination is not resolved by regulations and when you can not prevent the risks associated with an activity, the precautionary principle compels us to ban it.
On the issue of GM food consumption, is it not ultimately a decision of each individual to be left outside scientific or political discussions?
not think so. First, to make decisions, there must be options, but genetic pollution threatens to eliminate the option of non-GM foods.
Second, because these decisions are not personal: they affect others and that GM food production has environmental impacts that harm the collective rights of present and future generations. Food has an ecological, social, economic and political. We have an obligation to ensure that agriculture and fisheries to ensure sustainable food future generations.
Agriculture "transgenic" is not sustainable. It's a recipe to consolidate even more control of transnational corporations on the food system, thereby undermining the sovereignty and food security is also a recipe to heighten the environmental crisis, increasing crop genetic erosion, introduce new risks health and ecosystem impacts generate unpredictable, which hinder the current and future society. Consume GM is contributing to that situation. Therefore, their discussion is relevant and important for everyone to become aware of the consequences of their decisions. BBCMundo.com
Note: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/hi/spanish/science/newsid_3769000/3769945.stmPublicada: 2004/06/02 14:58:37 GMT © BBC MMIX
