Healthy Inclusions

With the cost of food skyrocketing – hitting not just shoppers but the poor and hungry in the developing
world – genetically modified (GM) foods are once again being promoted as the way to feed
the world. But this is little short of a confidence trick. Far from needing more GM foods, there are
urgent reasons why we need to ban them altogether.

(This information courtesy of banGMfood.org)

1. GM foods wont solve the food crisis
A 2008 World Bank report concluded that
increased biofuel production is the major
cause of the increase in food prices.1 GM giant
Monsanto has been at the heart of the lobbying
for biofuels (crops grown for fuel rather than
food) — while profiting enormously from
the resulting food crisis and using it as a PR
opportunity to promote GM foods!
“The climate crisis was used to boost biofuels,
helping to create the food crisis; and now the food
crisis is being used to revive the fortunes of the GM
industry.” — Daniel Howden, Africa correspondent of
The Independent2
“The cynic in me thinks that they’re just using
the current food crisis and the fuel crisis as a
springboard to push GM crops back on to the public
agenda. I understand why they’re doing it, but the
danger is that if they’re making these claims about
GM crops solving the problem of drought or feeding
the world, that’s bullshit.” – Prof Denis Murphy, head
of biotechnology at the University of Glamorgan in
Wales3

2. GM crops do not increase yield
potential
Despite the promises, GM has not increased
the yield potential of any commercialised
crops.4 In fact, studies show that the most
widely grown GM crop, GM soya, has suffered
reduced yields.5
A report that analyzed nearly two decades
worth of peer reviewed research on the
yield of the primary GM food/feed crops,
soybeans and corn (maize), reveals that
despite 20 years of research and 13 years of
commercialization, genetic engineering has
failed to significantly increase US crop yields.
The author, former US EPA and US FDA biotech
specialist Dr Gurian-Sherman, concludes that
when it comes to yield, “Traditional breeding
outperforms genetic engineering hands
down.”6
“Let’s be clear. As of this year [2008], there are no
commercialized GM crops that inherently increase
yield. Similarly, there are no GM crops on the market
that were engineered to resist drought, reduce
fertilizer pollution or save soil. Not one.” – Dr Doug
Gurian-Sherman7

3. GM crops increase pesticide use
US government data shows that in the US,
GM crops have produced an overall increase,
not decrease, in pesticide use compared to
conventional crops.8
“The promise was that you could use less
chemicals and produce a greater yield. But let
me tell you none of this is true.” – Bill Christison,
President of the US National Family Farm
Coalition9

4. There are better ways to feed
the world
A major UN/World Bank-sponsored report
compiled by 400 scientists and endorsed
by 58 countries concluded that GM crops
have little to offer global agriculture and
the challenges of poverty, hunger, and
climate change, because better alternatives
are available. In particular, the report
championed “agroecological” farming as
the sustainable way forward for developing
countries.

5. Other farm technologies are
more successful
Integrated Pest Management and other innovative
low-input or organic methods of controlling pests
and boosting yields have proven highly effective,
particularly in the developing world.11 Other plant
breeding technologies, such as Marker Assisted
Selection (non-GM genetic mapping), are widely
expected to boost global agricultural productivity
more effectively and safely than GM.12 13
“The quiet revolution is happening in gene mapping,
helping us understand crops better. That is up and
running and could have a far greater impact on
agriculture [than GM].” – Prof John Snape, head of
the department of crop genetics, John Innes Centre14

6. GM foods have not been shown
to be safe to eat
Genetic modification is a crude and imprecise
way of incorporating foreign genetic material
(e.g. from viruses, bacteria) into crops, with
unpredictable consequences. The resulting GM
foods have undergone little rigorous and no longterm
safety testing, but animal feeding tests
have shown worrying health effects.15 Only one
study has been published on the direct effects on
humans of eating a GM food.16 It found unexpected
effects on gut bacteria, but was never followed up.
It is claimed that Americans have eaten GM foods
for years with no ill effects. But these foods are
unlabeled in the US and no one has monitored
the consequences. With other novel foods like
trans fats, it has taken decades to realize that
they have caused millions of premature deaths.17
“We are confronted with the most powerful
technology the world has ever known, and it is being
rapidly deployed with almost no thought whatsoever
to its consequences.” — Dr Suzanne Wuerthele, US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) toxicologist

7. Stealth GMOs are in animal feed
— without consumers’ consent
Meat, eggs and dairy products from animals
raised on the millions of tons of GM feed
imported into Europe do not have to be labelled.
Some studies have shown that contrary to GM
and food industry claims, animals raised on GM
feed ARE different from those raised on non-
GM feed.18 Other studies show that if GM crops
are fed to animals, GM material can appear in
the resulting products19 and that the animals’
health can be affected.20 So eating “stealth
GMOs” may affect the health of consumers.

8. GM crops are a long-term
economic disaster for farmers
A 2009 report showed that GM seed prices in
America have increased dramatically, compared
to non-GM and organic seeds, cutting average
farm incomes for US farmers growing GM
crops. The report concluded, “At the present
time there is a massive disconnect between
the sometimes lofty rhetoric from those
championing biotechnology as the proven path
toward global food security and what is actually
happening on farms in the US that have grown
dependent on GM seeds and are now dealing
with the consequences.”21

9. GM and non-GM cannot co-exist
GM contamination of conventional and organic
food is increasing. An unapproved GM rice
that was grown for only one year in field trials
was found to have extensively contaminated
the US rice supply and seed stocks.22 In
Canada, the organic oilseed rape industry has
been destroyed by contamination from GM
rape.23 In Spain, a study found that GM maize
“has caused a drastic reduction in organic
cultivations of this grain and is making their
coexistence practically impossible”.24
The time has come to choose between a GMbased,
or a non-GM-based, world food supply.
“If some people are allowed to choose to grow, sell
and consume GM foods, soon nobody will be able
to choose food, or a biosphere, free of GM. It’s a
one way choice, like the introduction of rabbits or
cane toads to Australia; once it’s made, it can’t be
reversed.” – Roger Levett, specialist in sustainable
development25

10. We can’t trust GM companies
The big biotech firms pushing their GM foods
have a terrible history of toxic contamination
and public deception.26 GM is attractive to
them because it gives them patents that allow
monopoly control over the world’s food supply.
They have taken to harassing and intimidating
farmers for the “crime” of saving patented
seed or “stealing” patented genes — even if
those genes got into the farmer’s fields through
accidental contamination by wind or insects.27
“Farmers are being sued for having GMOs on their
property that they did not buy, do not want, will not use
and cannot sell.” – Tom Wiley, North Dakota farmer28

REFERENCES
1. A Note on Rising Food Prices. Donald Mitchell, World
Bank report, 2008. http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/
Environment/documents/2008/07/10/Biofuels.PDF
2. Hope for Africa lies in political reforms. Daniel Howden,
The Independent, 8 September 2008, http://www.
independent.co.uk:80/opinion/commentators/danielhowden-
hope-for-africa-lies-in-political-reforms-922487.html
3. GM: it’s safe, but it’s not a saviour. Rob Lyons, Spiked
Online, 7 July 2008, http://www.spiked-online.com/index.
php?/site/article/5438/
4. The adoption of bioengineered crops. Jorge Fernandez-
Cornejo and William D. McBride, US Department of
Agriculture Report, May 2002, http://www.ers.usda.gov/
publications/aer810/aer810.pdf
5. Glyphosate-resistant soyabean cultivar yields compared
with sister lines. Elmore, R.W. et al., Agronomy Journal, Vol.
93, No. 2, 2001, pp. 408–412
6. Failure to Yield: Evaluating the Performance of Genetically
Engineered Crops. Doug Gurian-Sherman, Union of Concerned
Scientists, 2009, http://tiny.cc/eqZST
7. Genetic engineering — a crop of hyperbole. Doug Gurian-
Sherman, The San Diego Union Tribune, 18 June 2008,
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080618/news_
lz1e18gurian.html
8. Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide
Use: The First Thirteen Years. Charles Benbrook, Ph.D., The
Organic Center, November 2009, http://www.organic-center.
org/science.pest.php?action=view&report_id=159
9. Family Farmers Warn of Dangers of Genetically Engineered
Crops. Bill Christison, In Motion magazine, 29 July 1998,
http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/genet1.html
10. International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge,
Science and Technology for Development: Global Summary
for Decision Makers (IAASTD). Beintema, N. et al., 2008,
http://www.agassessment.org/index.cfm?Page=IAASTD%20
Reports&ItemID=2713
11. International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge,
Science and Technology for Development: Global Summary
for Decision Makers (IAASTD). Beintema, N. et al., 2008,
http://www.agassessment.org/index.cfm?Page=IAASTD%20
Reports&ItemID=2713
12. Marker-assisted selection: an approach for precision
plant breeding in the twenty-first century. Collard, B.C.Y.
and D.J. Mackill, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B, Vol. 363, 2008, pp.
557-572, 2008
13. Breeding for abiotic stresses for sustainable agriculture.
Witcombe J.R. et al., Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B, 2008, Vol. 363,
pp. 703-716
14. Gene mapping the friendly face of GM technology.
Professor John Snape, Farmers Weekly, 1 March 2002, p. 54
15. Here is a small selection of such papers: Fine structural
analysis of pancreatic acinar cell nuclei from mice fed on
GM soybean. Malatesta, M. et al., Eur. J. Histochem., Vol.
47, 2003, pp. 385–388; Ultrastructural morphometrical
and immunocytochemical analyses of hepatocyte nuclei
from mice fed on genetically modified soybean. Malatesta,
M. et al., Cell Struct Funct., Vol. 27, 2002, pp. 173-
180; Ultrastructural analysis of testes from mice fed on
genetically modified soybean. Vecchio L. et al., Eur. J.
Histochem., Vol. 48, pp. 448-454, 2004; A long-term study
on female mice fed on a genetically modified soybean:
effects on liver ageing. Malatesta M. et al., Histochem Cell
Biol., Vol. 130, 2008, pp. 967-977; Effects of diets containing
genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis
lectin on rat small intestine. Ewen S.W. and A. Pusztai, The
Lancet, Vol. 354, 1999, pp. 1353–1354; New Analysis of a
Rat Feeding Study with a Genetically Modified Maize Reveals
Signs of Hepatorenal Toxicity. Séralini, G.-E. et al., Arch.
Environ. Contam. Toxicol., Vol. 52, 2007, pp. 596-602.
16. Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the
human gastrointestinal tract. Netherwood T. et al., Nature
Biotechnology, Vol. 22, 2004, pp. 204–209.
17. Trans Fats: The story behind the label. Paula Hartman
Cohen, Harvard Public Health Review, 2006, http://www.
hsph.harvard.edu/review/rvw_spring06/rvwspr06_transfats.
html
18. Report on animals exposed to GM ingredients in animal
feed. Professor Jack A. Heinemann, PhD. Prepared for
the Commerce Commission of New Zealand, 24 July 2009,
http://bit.ly/4HcJuJ
19. Detection of Transgenic and Endogenous Plant DNA in
Digesta and Tissues of Sheep and Pigs Fed Roundup Ready
Canola Meal. Sharma, R. et al., J. Agric. Food Chem., Vol.
54, No. 5, 2006, pp. 1699–1709; Assessing the transfer of
genetically modified DNA from feed to animal tissues. Mazza,
R. et al., Transgenic Res., Vol. 14, No. 5, 2005, pp. 775–784;
Detection of genetically modified DNA sequences in milk from
the Italian market. Agodi, A., et al., Int. J. Hyg. Environ.
Health, Vol. 209, 2006, pp. 81–88
20. Report on animals exposed to GM ingredients in animal
feed. Professor Jack A. Heinemann, PhD. Prepared for
the Commerce Commission of New Zealand, 24 July 2009,
http://bit.ly/4HcJuJ
21. The Magnitude and Impacts of the Biotech and Organic
Seed Price Premium. Dr Charles Benbrook, The Organic
Center, December 2009, http://www.organic-center.org/
reportfiles/Seeds_Final_11-30-09.pdf
22. Risky business: Economic and regulatory impacts from
the unintended release of genetically engineered rice
varieties into the rice merchandising system of the US.
Blue, Dr E. Neal, report for Greenpeace, 2007, http://www.
greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/
risky-business.pdf
23. Seeds of doubt: North American farmers’ experience of
GM crops. Soil Association, 2002, http://www.soilassociation.
org/seedsofdoubt
24. Coexistence of plants and coexistence of farmers: Is
an individual choice possible? Binimelis, R., Journal of
Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, Vol. 21, No. 2, April
2008
25. Choice: Less can be more. Roger Levett, Food Ethics
magazine, Vol. 3, No. 3, Autumn 2008, p. 11, http://www.
foodethicscouncil.org/node/384
26. See, for example, Marie-Monique Robin’s documentary
film, Le Monde Selon Monsanto (The World According to
Monsanto), ARTE, 2008; and the website of the NGO,
Coalition Against Bayer-Dangers, www.cbgnetwork.org
27. GM company Monsanto has launched many such lawsuits
against farmers. A famous example is the case of the Canadian
farmer Percy Schmeiser. Just one article on this case is “GM
firm sues Canadian farmer”, BBC News Online, 6 June 2000,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/779265.stm
28. Monsanto ”Seed Police” Scrutinize Farmers. Stephen
Leahy, InterPress Service, 15 January 2004, http://www.
commondreams.org/headlines05/0115-04.htm