|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Agriculture |
|
Independent Science Panel Releases Scathing Report On Genetically Modified Food And Crops |
Current rating: 0 |
by Food First
(No verified email address) |
18 Jun 2003
|
|
"For better of for worse, this report will lay to rest the belief that GM food and crops pose no danger to health and the environment," said Dr. Peter Rosset, co-director of the Institute for Food and Development Policy (Food First) in Oakland, CA, USA, and a contributor to the report. "There is no pressing need for GM crops to be in our food supply today," he said. "World agriculture is characterized by massive overproduction, and people go hungry because of poverty, not because of lack of GM seeds, when they are too poor to buy from the plenty around them..." |
OAKLAND, CA - June 16 - The Independent Science Panel (ISP) yesterday released a report critical of genetically modified (GM) food and crops because of potential risks to human health and the environment, while making the case that better ways are readily available to produce food sustainably.
Based on more than 200 references to primary and secondary sources, the ISP report, The Case for a GM-Free Sustainable World, is a complete dossier of evidence on the known problems and hazards of GM crops as well as the manifold benefits of sustainable agriculture. This report comes at a time when governments have failed to conduct adequate health and safety tests.
"Many scientists are concerned over the safety of GM. We believe people should have all the evidence in front of them, so they can make the right choice for the future of agriculture and food security," said Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, director of the Institute of Science in Society in the United Kingdom, and lead author of the report. "We set up the Independent Science Panel because we have lost confidence in the official process."
"For better of for worse, this report will lay to rest the belief that GM food and crops pose no danger to health and the environment," said Dr. Peter Rosset, co-director of the Institute for Food and Development Policy (Food First) in Oakland, CA, USA, and a contributor to the report. "There is no pressing need for GM crops to be in our food supply today," he said. "World agriculture is characterized by massive overproduction, and people go hungry because of poverty, not because of lack of GM seeds, when they are too poor to buy from the plenty around them. Thus we can afford the time for a moratorium on GM food and crops until such time -- if ever -- they are proven safe," he concluded.
The Independent Science Panel (ISP -- http://www.indsp.org), consists of prominent scientists from seven countries, spanning the disciplines of agroecology, agronomy, biomathematics, botany, chemical medicine, ecology, histopathology, microbial ecology, molecular biology, molecular genetics, nutritional biochemistry, physiology, toxicology and virology.
For more information, please contact Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, director of the Institute of Science in Society in the United Kingdom; tel: 44-(0)20-7272-5636 or Dr. Peter Rosset, (510) 654-4400, ext. 224.
|
See also:
http://www.indsp.org
http://www.foodfirst.org
|
Comments
|
New Study Finds Thousands Of Field Tests Of Genetically Engineered Crops Across The U.S.: Experiments Threaten Public Health, Environment, And Farmers |
by Environment California
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
19 Jun 2003
|
Nearly 40,000 field tests of genetically engineered organisms were authorized by the Department of Agriculture between 1987 and 2002 —more than 10,000 in the past two years alone—despite serious environmental threats and inadequate regulations in place to monitor their impacts, according to a new report released today by Environment California. 1709 field tests have been conducted in California, including tomato, corn, melon, and rice.
The report, Raising Risk: Field Testing of Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S. (http://www.environmentcalifornia.org/envirocaliftoxics.asp?id2=10197), highlights potential health and environmental risks associated with the release of genetically engineered plants. For example, 500,000 bushels of soybeans had to be quarantined and eventually destroyed last fall when a field test of a genetically engineered crop designed to produce a pig vaccine was not properly kept separate from conventional crops. In addition, a report last year from the National Academy of Sciences confirmed that the government permitted commercial production of a variety of genetically engineered corn found toxic to monarch butterflies under field conditions. The report concludes that, if field experiments are not rigorously monitored, the resulting genetic pollution can put farmers' livelihoods and the environment at risk.
"Our environment and food supply is being used as a laboratory for widespread experimentation on genetically engineered crops with profound risks that, once released, can never be recalled," said Kate Madigan, Safe Foods Advocate for Environment California. "Until proper safeguards are in place, this unchecked experiment must stop."
Findings of the new Environment California report include:
• As of January 2003, the ten states and territories that have hosted the greatest number of field test sites are: Hawaii (4,566), Illinois (4,014), Iowa (3,831), Puerto Rico (2,957), California (1,709), Nebraska (1,699), Pennsylvania (1,672), Minnesota (1,414), Indiana (1,256), and Idaho (1,170).
• Since 1995, seven of the top 10 companies seeking to conduct field tests have merged into two companies: Monsanto and DuPont.
• Between 1987-2002, Monsanto (or a now wholly-owned subsidiary) applied to conduct the greatest number of field tests, with more than 3,000 applications.
• Nearly 70% of all field tests conducted in the last year now contain secret genes classified as "Confidential Business Information," which means that the public has no access to information about experiments being conducted in their communities.
These experimental genetically engineered crops are growing in the open environment primarily to determine whether or not an engineered seed appears to grow successfully and expresses the desired trait. Environment California charges that field testing genetically engineered crops in such a widespread way poses serious threats to the environment, public health, and neighboring farmers.
"We know that organic farmers already face serious economic and management problems from the risk of contamination by genetically engineered crops that have been commercialized,"
said Mark Lipson, Policy Program Director for the Organic Farming Research Foundation. "This report on experimental field trials and USDA's weak oversight suggests that these problems will get worse, and we don't even know what to look for."
Another goal of the field tests is to obtain information about potential ecological risks associated with genetically engineered organisms. However, independent reviews of the data collected by the Department of Agriculture demonstrate that very little data has been collected. As a result, despite the large number of field experiments that have occurred, fundamental questions about their impact remain unanswered, including long-term impacts on the soil and non-target species.
"The environmental and public health effects of genetically engineered crops should be determined before these crops are grown in the open air," said Richard Caplan, Advocate for Environment California and author of the report. "To conduct field tests before doing safety tests is premature and hazardous-- it's like carrying out clinical trials of a drug before the laboratory tests are complete."
Environment California calls for a moratorium on genetically engineered foods unless:
• independent testing demonstrates safety,
• labeling for any products commercialized honors consumers' the right to know, and
• the biotechnology corporations are held accountable for any harm done.
"Genetically engineered foods have no place on supermarket shelves or in our environment until proper safeguards are in place," added Kate Madigan. "This rush to market without regard for human health and the environment could be disastrous."
Environment California, the new home of CALPIRG's environmental programs, is a 501 (c)(4) organization that offers an independent, articulate voice on behalf of the public interest in California; the Environment California Research & Policy Center is the group's sister c(3) organization. Drawing upon 30 years of experience, our professional staff combines independent research and practical ideas to uncover environmental problems, develop pragmatic policy solutions and engage citizens in our work for meaningful results.
http://www.environmentcalifornia.org/ |
|
