GMO Myths and Truths
Genetically modified (GM) crops are promoted on the basis of a range of far-reaching claims from the GM crop industry and its supporters. They say that GM crops:
- Are an extension of natural breeding and do not pose different risks from naturally bred crops
- Are safe to eat and can be more nutritious than naturally bred crops
- Are strictly regulated for safety
- Increase crop yields
- Reduce pesticide use
- Benefit farmers and make their lives easier
- Bring economic benefits
- Benefit the environment
- Can help solve problems caused by climate change
- Reduce energy use
- Will help feed the world.
However, a large and growing body of scientific and other authoritative evidence shows that these claims are not true. On the contrary, evidence presented in this report indicates that GM crops:
- Are laboratory-made, using technology that is totally different from natural breeding methods, and pose different risks from non-GM crops
- Can be toxic, allergenic or less nutritious than their natural counterparts
- Are not adequately regulated to ensure safety
- Do not increase yield potential
- Do not reduce pesticide use but increase it
- Create serious problems for farmers, including herbicide-tolerant “superweeds”, compromised soil quality, and increased disease susceptibility in crops
- Have mixed economic effects
- Harm soil quality, disrupt ecosystems, and reduce biodiversity
- Do not offer effective solutions to climate change
- Are as energy-hungry as any other chemically-farmed crops
- Cannot solve the problem of world hunger but distract from its real causes – poverty, lack of access to food and, increasingly, lack of access to land to grow it on.
Based on the evidence presented in this report, there is no need to take risks with GM crops when effective, readily available, and sustainable solutions to the problems that GM technology is claimed to address already exist. Conventional plant breeding, in some cases helped by safe modern technologies like gene mapping and marker assisted selection, continues to outperform GM in producing high-yield, drought-tolerant, and pest- and disease-resistant crops that can meet our present and future food needs.
Download a PDF of the full GMO Myths and Truths report
Comments
A point-by-point refutation is in preparation.
That's what you get when you take all sides of the evidence into account! Not exactly reassuring.
This response only speaks for me, but here's my reply to some of your points addressed to various commenters.
You say, "there's plenty of research on the safety of gmo's" but neither I nor anyone on this thread has claimed that there isn't. You are shifting your argument, which began with a claim that the studies showing risk from GMOs have been replicated and shown to be wrong. This is untrue.
We address a lot of studies ON BOTH SIDES in GMO Myths and Truths, including studies in the wikipedia list. Where is your analysis of these studies or even any sign that you have looked at any of them?
Many of the studies we analyse are the industry studies that claimed GMOs are safe. They are as revealing, in their way, as the studies that find risk, because they often do reveal signs of toxicity but then claim that they don't!
Again, you would know this if you had actually read our report, which I encourage you to do. You should also address the comprehensive reviews of studies on GMOs, which we also summarise in our report.
Naturally a study on one GMO only allows conclusions to be drawn about one GMO. Seralini has been clear on this; as have we. It is GM proponents who insist on claiming safety for ALL GMOs based on the findings of studies on ONE particular GMO! This is bad science of the sort we've come to expect from GM proponents.
Whether or not we believe Monsanto's research, it is industry's job to prove its GMOs are safe, NOT the public's job to prove they are not. We are consistently reminded of this fact by EFSA and they are correct on this. Thus Monsanto must do basic safety research on its GMOS BEFORE putting them on the market. It has failed to do this.
I repeat: There is plenty of research showing the risks of GMOs of various types. Industry and GM proponents have failed to address this research or to investigate further. Note: a 90-day rat feeding study, such as Monsanto does on its GMOs, is NOT a detailed long term toxicity study. This is why we resist the genetic engineering of our food supply
It's my last post because when involving myself in discussions like these, somehow I keep finding myself defending the likes of Monsanto, to whom I have no allegeance whatsoever, and who I do not want to defend at all!. I do it just because of the irrationality of the attacks to their adress...
That is perhaps my biggest issue with the anti-GM movement, that I feel manoevered into this position in spite of the fact that I care nothing for GM industry.
Anyway, here goes...
@claire robinson1: there's plenty of research on the safety of gmo's, whether or not in response to research that is supposed to 'prove' GMOs are unsafe. I'm to lazy to look it up myself, but the following wikipedia page contains more than 300 links to relevant research both ways...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies
I DO understand why you would attempt to mislead the public on this issue: GMWatch has a point to prove (as does Seralini). But by pretending there is no research to support the safety of GMOs, you are stooping to the level of Monsanto. Myths and truths... With all the patents being issued (most of which I oppose to), Monsanto cs. still don't have a monopoly on spinning the truth!
@pete: even if monsanto came up with 'evidence' of the safety of GMOs, would you believe it? Or discard it simply because it came from Monsanto? In fact, who would you believe, if they told you GMOs are safe? Or have you already made up your mind and do you judge others on that basis? Seems to me a lot of anti-GM activists will keep claiming we need more research, until research proves beyond a doubt that which they want to hear: GMOs are dangerous! Any other research is to be ignored, discarded or discredited.
@ Lise, in his paper, Seralini doesn't overdramatise. In the media, he does. Like an activist would. You sum it up quite consisely:
'those tumour-ridden rats will be in the public's mind for ever'
Seems to me that was exactly his goal. Regardless of proper science, regardless of the truth, regardless of the fact that he studied 1 GMO variety and not all GMOs. As long as people keep associating GMOs with cancer, his mission is accomplished. Hence the book, the film, the pressure on journalists, the lab people in extreme protective gear on the pictures, the statistical fishing exercise, etc. etc.
And that's all fine, for an activist, I believe in a strong civil society and there's a place in that for people like him. But then please drop the professor title (already subject to inflation anyway) and the cloak of impartial scientist, and just call yourself campainger, like Greenpeace does.
Sorry for not playing along, and - I must say from the bottom of my heart - my thanks and respect for posting all my messages. Still something to like the anti-GM movement for, then...
All the best,
Me, myself and I
I think what is important is what is said in Seralini's paper. He doesn't overdramatise the findings but just states them, as you say. I agree with you that Monsanto et al's misrepresentati ons of their studies are deplorable, but they misrepresent both in their studies themselves (eg claiming proof of safety when the data don't justify it) and in their publicity and lobbying efforts. Seralini on the other hand showed the pictures, and said there were concerns that need to be investigated further. I don't find that to be a misrepresentati on of the findings and it is after all, the easiest thing in the world for Monsanto to bring out its own long-term rat feeding data and show that the maize is safe. Oh, you say there isn't any? Darn... So those tumour-ridden rats will be in the public's mind for ever...
Thank you for proving my point. The research of all the people you mention has been studied closely and seriously by independent scientists and in many cases redone. The conclusion in all cases was that they did not prove anything in terms of general risk of GMOs. However, you disqualify all these efforts as 'railers against scientists' by 'industry flacks', as far as I can tell only because you don't like the outcome.
That said, I strongly disagree with the way scientists are sometimes handled (in particular Pusztai) when they come out with results critical of GMOs. But that doesn't make their work true by definition.
@ Lise, Seralini came out strong claiming in the media, claiming to have found the evidence that GMOs are linked to cancer. Hence the dramatic pictures (in my view scientifically unnecessary). In the article itself, he is much more careful in drawing conclusions (to pass the peer review?), stating only that it is worth further investigating. I find that a conscious effort to mislead the media and the general public, yes. And even if it may be true that GMO industry does the same (both in terms of bad science as seeking publicity), this is not a good reason to stoop to their level. And using that as an excuse is at best childish.
RSS feed for comments to this post