Genetically modified (GM) foods are being hailed as the great solution
to all the world's problems. They are claimed to be safe and environmentally
friendly, reducing the need for chemicals in agriculture whilst still
helping to feed the world's hungry. But what lurks behind the smooth
phrases and public face of the industry? What is the real state of things?
What is genetically modified food really going to do? Is it able to
live up to all these promises?
Genetically modified crops are very close to being grown commercially
in this country. Over the next few years there are plans to grow GM
oilseed rape, sugar beet, fodder beet and maize with GM potatoes and
wheat to follow. It is possible that some of them will be grown here
by the end of 1999.
Genetically modified (GM) foods are already on UK shop shelves. They
can be found in many food products and each year more and more come
onto the market. Foods that have been genetically engineered include
tomato puree, soya and maize. Soya and maize products are used in a
wide range of processed foods. In fact, 60 % of processed foods contain
soya derivatives. As imports of GM soya and maize increase, more and
more of our foods will contain GM products.
Friends of the Earth has serious concerns about the impacts of GM foods and crops on public health and the environment.
Genetic modification is a technology which allows scientists to take
'genes' (see box) from one organism and put them into another. This
changes the way the organism develops, making new types of plants and
animals.
It is often claimed that genetic modification is just an extension of the plant and animal breeding that has been going on for hundreds of years1. This is not true. Traditional breeders are restricted by natural barriers that stop unrelated organisms (such as a rat and a cotton plant) from breeding with each other. Genetic modification is entirely different. It allows genes to be crossed between organisms that could never breed naturally. A gene from a fish, for example, has been put into a tomato.
All organisms, from viruses to humans, contain a unique set of instructions which set down how they develop, grow and live. These instructions are found inside cells on a long molecule called DNA.
DNA is divided into sections which control different aspects of the organism's growth, and these are called genes. In genetic modification, DNA is cut up, and genes are moved around from one organism to another.
It has been claimed that genetic modification uses 'naturally occurring'
genes which are simply inserted into another organism 2.
In fact, to get the results they want, genetic engineers have had to
create new genes, using bits and pieces of DNA from all sorts of different
organisms and even making synthetic DNA. A company called Novartis created
a new strain of maize by inserting DNA from a virus, maize and two different
types of bacteria3.
The genes used in genetic modification are not 'naturally occurring'
- they are artificial genes specially created to break down natural
barriers.
Genetic modification is not a precise operation. Scientists do not fully understand what happens when they fuse genes into the DNA of another organism4. More than one copy of the gene may be inserted5, other genes may get 'switched off'6 or the genes vary in how they work7. Understanding of how DNA and genes work is still very poor - for most plants and animals no one even knows what the vast majority of the genes do or how they interact8. The fact is, genetic modification is using very haphazard methods to play with something we understand very little.
Genetic modification is imprecise and unpredictable. By inserting genes
from organisms which have never been eaten as food, new proteins are
introduced into the human and animal food chains. There is concern that
these could cause allergic reactions or other health effects.
Many GM foods contain genes which provide resistance to commonly used
antibiotics such as ampicillin. There is concern that these could be
passed onto the bacteria in the guts of humans and animals. The UK Government's
own advisory body on the safety of GM foods has expressed concerns about
just this issue9,
but this has not stopped such foods being put on the market.
In spite of the risks, food safety tests are limited to short-term tests on animals. The Government's advisors on the safety of GM foods rely on results of tests conducted by the GM companies themselves. And, although there is independent Government research, the results will not be ready until 2001. So by the time information about food safety is available, people will have been eating them for several years.
Genetic modification of food crops is coming under the control of big
companies that started out selling chemicals. Companies such as Monsanto
are buying up genetic modification companies, seed suppliers and grain
merchants. They use patent laws to 'own' every GM plant grown from their
seed. Some companies even produce contracts for farmers which force
them to pay a “technology” fee, require the farmer to use
the company's own chemicals, prevent them from saving seed and even
allow the company to inspect the farm10.
Tight controls like these enable the companies to make profits all along
the food chain.
Genetic engineers have recently found a way to stop seed saved from
one harvest from growing the next year. This 'terminator technology'
directly threatens the ancient farming practice of saving a part of
the harvest to grow as next year's crop. Over 1 billion of the world's
poorest people rely on farm-saved seed for their food11.
Terminator seeds would end this practice. This will reduce the self
reliance of farmers and force them to spend money each year on new seeds
from the genetic modification companies.
As this process goes on, farmers will have less say over what they grow and consumers will have less power to choose what they want to eat.
As yet, Friends of the Earth cannot supply a list of food suppliers and manufacturers who supply food free from GM materials. However, any food labeled as organic (eg certified by the Soil Association) , or which is Iceland Frozen Foods own brand, will not contain GM ingredients. In addition, many wholefood shops should be able to provide GM free products. If you are concerned about a specific product, contact the manufacturers to express your concerns and ask for assurances that the product does not contain GM substances.
At present the labelling of GM foods is very confusing. Under European
Union rules, GM foods must be labelled, but not necessarily all of them.
For example, some products derived from GM foods, such as oils and additives,
do not need to be labelled. Neither do some processed GM foods, such
as some ready cooked meals. This means that under EU rules most foods
from GM sources will not need to be labelled.
The situation is further complicated because GM soya beans and maize imported from the US are not separated from normal crops. This means it is impossible to know if products based on US soya and maize contain GM material. Because of this, several retailers are now finding sources of these crops that are guaranteed to be free of GM material.
Once GM crops start to be grown, they could pose some very serious
threats to the environment. Crops soon to be released commercially are
herbicide (weedkiller) tolerant oilseed rape, sugar beet, fodder beet
and maize. These have been genetically engineered to be tolerant to
powerful herbicides which kill all plants. This means that only the
crop can survive being sprayed, and all the other plants in the fields
die.
Farmland contains many of our native plant species. Many 'weeds' have
been so successfully controlled by modern agriculture that they are
now classed as endangered species12,
and there is a real threat that GM crops could wipe them out completely.
In contrast, many of the real problem-weeds for farmers, such as blackgrass,
are a problem because they can rapidly develop resistance to herbicides13,
so they may quickly become immune to the herbicides anyway.
Wild plants in fields are also extremely important as food and habitats for insects and birds. If all the wild plants in the fields are wiped out, many insects and birds will be unable to find enough food. Many farmland birds which rely on such food sources are already in severe decline14. So the bird species most likely to be affected by herbicide tolerant crops are those which are already most vulnerable. This has led English Nature (the Government's wildlife advisor) to warn that the introduction of herbicide tolerant crops “could be the final blow for species like the skylark, the linnet and the corn bunting”15.
There are threats to wildlife from other types of GM crops as well.
Many crops are now being developed which contain genes making them poisonous
to insects. It is argued that these will reduce the need for insecticides
and so benefit the environment.However there is now evidence that beneficial
predator insects such as lacewings and ladybirds could also be affected
if they eat insects that have been feeding on these GM plants16,
17.
GM crops will have harmful effects on plants, insects and animal wildlife in this country. There is a real risk that farms could soon become wildlife wastelands.
Many crop plants can interbreed with wild plants that are closely related
to them. For example, both oilseed rape and sugar beet can cross breed
with various UK wild plants. Research has shown that the GM genes can
be passed onto these wild plants 18,19.
There is much concern that if traits such as weedkiller and insect resistance
are passed to wild plants, new 'superweeds' could develop. Research
into the effects of GM on the environment lags far behind the rush to
create ever more GM organisms. What is certain is that once these genes
are released there can be no recall.
Some crops can “escape” into the wild and become a pest as well. Oilseed rape can be found in hedgerows and roadsides. If these are resistant to herbicides then they may become difficult to control and cause ecological damage by competing with other local plants.
Another threat from GM crops is the fact that it will become impossible
to guarantee GM free supplies of food. GM crops and ordinary crops can
cross pollinate each other, so farmers not wanting to grow GM crops
could find their crops contaminated anyway. Oilseed rape pollen can
travel over 2.5 km20,
sugar beet pollen over 3 km21,
and there have been cases of maize pollen travelling several miles22.
This means that protecting crops from contamination will be extremely
difficult and will be impossible once more GM crops are introduced.
Farmers hoping to sell food free from genetic engineering, including organic farmers, will be threatened by GM crops. Organic standards do not allow any GM material in food, but with pollen able to travel long distances, organic crops could be contaminated. Organic farmers could lose their organic status. The Government has said that it will work to protect organic farmers23, but in a recent legal case the Environment Minister refused to stop a GM crop trial which threatened a neighbouring organic farmer's crop24. At present there is no legal protection for organic farmers, and they do not even have to be told when a GM crop is planted in their neighbourhood.
Although GM crops cannot yet be sold to farmers, they are being grown
around the country at experimental 'test sites'. Companies test whether
the GM crops can survive outside the laboratory and whether they grow
as expected. Since 1992 there have been over 500 such tests of experimental
GM organisms in the UK and, despite public concern and protest, they
continue to go ahead.
Test sites are supposed to be safe, yet many of the controls are inadequate.
Isolation zones must be placed around the crops to make sure they can't
breed with other plants in the area. But these are often woefully inadequate.
In the case of oilseed rape, the maximum isolation distance is 400m25,
despite the fact that oilseed rape pollen can travel up to 2.5 km. There
have been several cases where safety measures were not properly carried
out by the companies. Despite this, in 1997, fewer than one quarter
of all sites were inspected to make sure they were carrying out the
proper safety precautions26.
If you would like details of where these GM test sites are, please write to the Information and Enquiries Unit at Friends of the Earth. The address is at the end of this briefing.
Releases of GM foods and crops into the environment are controlled
by the Government but the process is very complex. There are 3 Government
departments and 7 advisory committees involved, each looking at part
of the issue, but with no one responsible for the whole thing. This
piecemeal approach has lead to a situation where important issues fall
through the net. For example, the threat to birds posed by GM herbicide
tolerant crops was not picked up by any of the committees or Government
departments which were meant to be reviewing their safety. It was left
to English Nature to draw attention to this issue.
The committee responsible for assessing whether or not GM crops are
safe to be grown in the countryside is the Advisory Committee on Releases
to the Environment (ACRE). It is vital that there is independent safety
assessment, and yet 7 out of the 13 members of ACRE are connected with
organisations that are involved in GM research27.
Since 1992, when it was set up, the committee has not turned down a
single application to release GM crops into the environment28.
Not only is the system confusing, but it is not open to public participation. Despite the fact that 77% of the UK population want a ban until more investigations are done29, they have no voice in the decision making process. The only requirement with regard to public involvement is for companies to place a notice in local newspapers when they want to plant a GM crop test site. But there is only a very short period of time in which the public can object, and in many cases Government consent has been granted before the notice is placed in the newspaper.
Genetic engineering companies are heavily promoting GM crops amongst
farmers, claiming that they will improve yields and help the environment30.
The reality is that neither of these claims hold up. There is increasing
evidence that for some GM crops yields are no better than normal crops31,32,
while effects on the environment are likely to be severe.
It is possible that herbicide tolerant crops may be more prone to fungal attack, or attack by aphids and disease33,34, so increasing the need for more pesticides. There is also evidence that weeds and pests will rapidly develop resistance to these GM crops35,36. This will force farmers onto a 'genetic treadmill' - having to keep buying new types of GM crops in order to keep up.
It is often claimed that one reason for having GM crops is that they
will help to feed the world's growing population in the coming century
by increasing yields and fighting crop diseases. However, many people
in the world are suffering from malnutrition and hunger because they
cannot afford to buy food, not because it is unavailable. Complex social,
political and economic forces affect how people have access to land,
money and resources. It is these forces, much more than the level of
food production which determine who gets to eat, and who does not. It
is not just a simple case of there being more people, so more food should
be grown. There is more than enough food to feed everyone very well
at the moment, yet hundreds of millions of people go hungry and nearly
two billion are malnourished. The real roots of world hunger are economic
and political.
But even ignoring this, it is hard to see how genetically modified
crops will help feed the world's hungry. Most GM crops being grown at
the moment are destined for markets in rich countries. Soya and maize
are used mainly for animal feed and for adding to processed food in
rich countries. Such products will not help to feed the poor and hungry
of the world. Two thirds of GM crops being grown around the world at
the moment are herbicide tolerant. These crops are designed for use
in intensive farming systems, with single crops in large fields requiring
heavy use of chemical inputs. Many farmers in developing countries are
small scale, growing many different crops and they often cannot afford
the chemicals needed. Another focus for research has been GM cotton
and tobacco, neither of which will help to increase food supplies.
GM crops are being developed for use by the farmers of rich nations, for whom the problem is not too little food production, but too much.
Farming systems which use a wide range of crops and fewer chemicals
are not only better for the environment but can also provide better
food security for the world's poor37.
By using a wide range of different crops adapted to local conditions
farmers can protect themselves against crop failures. There are now
many studies which have shown that such diverse systems can give higher
yields, better incomes and better nutritional value than intensive farming
systems imported from rich nations38.
In some cases, farmers are abandoning intensive chemical farming systems
and going back to traditional farming with their own varieties of seeds39.
The story is similar in this country. There are much safer ways of
reducing chemical use in agriculture. For example, by working out when
there is actually a weed problem and only applying chemicals then, farmers
can reduce their use by up to 97%40.
Similarly, there are now very effective machines for weed control, and
by using these, farmers can reduce their need for herbicides.
Genetically modified crops are an extension of intensive chemical farming which has caused so much damage around the world. We need to move towards farming systems which protect the environment and are truly sustainable. This is the only way to protect food supplies in the future.
Friends of Earth is calling for a moratorium on the growing of genetically
modified crops until the implications have been fully evaluated and
necessary action taken to avoid environmental damage and any unnecessary
risks to human health.
Important Government research into the health and environmental impacts
of GM foods and crops will not be ready until 2001. Friends of the Earth
believes that introduction of this uncertain technology should be delayed
until the research has been completed and fully analysed.
Friends of the Earth is campaigning for sustainable farming practices that don't depend on chemical inputs, producing food that is safe to eat and minimises the impact on the environment.
1.If you support a moratorium, write urgently to your MP, c/o House
of Commons, LONDON, SW1A OAA. (If you don't know who it is then
ring 020 7219 4272.) Ask your MP to support a moratorium and take the
issue up with the Ministry of Agriculture.
2. If you would like to choose not to support genetically modified
foods then let your local supermarket know. Ask them not to sell genetically
engineered foods.
3. Watch where you shop. Organic foods, Iceland Supermarkets and many wholefood shops have banned GM ingredients altogether.
Friends of the Earth
26-28 Underwood Street
LONDON
N1 7JQ
Email: info@foe.co.uk
Website: www.foe.co.uk
Published: September 1998
return to text
1. Monsanto, 1998. “This strawberry tastes just like a strawberry”
Advertisement,Guardian, 4 July 1998.
return to text
2. Monsanto, 1998. “We believe food should be grown with less
pesticide” Advertisement, Independent, 4 July 1998.
return to text
3. Novartis, 1996. Application to market GM maize (zea mays) with
resistance to corn borers and tolerance to glufosinate ammonium herbicides.
Ref. 96/M4/1.
return to text
4.Maessen, GDF. 1997. “Genomic stability and stability of expression
in GM plants” Acta Bot. Neer. Vol 46(1) pp.3-24
return to text
5. Delores, SC and RC Gardner. 1988. “Expression and inheritance
of kanamycin resistance in a large number transgenic petunias generated
by Agrobacterium-mediated transformation”. Plant Mol. Biol. Vol
11 pp 355-364
return to text
6. Maessen, GDF. Op cit 4
return to text
7. Mannerlof, M and P Tenning. 1997. “Variability of gene expression
in transgenic tobacco” Euphytica Vol 98 pp. 133-139
return to text
8. Wan-Ho, M. 1998. “Genetic Engineering - Dreams or Nightmares”
return to text
9. Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes. 1994. “Report
on the Use of Antibiotic Resistance Markers in GM Food Organisms.”
July 1994.
return to text
10. Monsanto Canada Inc. Undated. “Roundup Ready Canola Retail
Guide - Technology Use Agreement”
return to text
11. The Global Plan of Action for the Conservation and Sustainable
utilisation of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, resulting
from the Fourth International Technical Conference on Plant Genetic
Resources, 17-23 June, 1993, Leipsig, Germany. Attended by 150 countries.
return to text
12. Wilson, P.J., N.D. Boatman and P.J. Edwards. 1990. "Strategies
for the conservation of endangered arable weeds in great Britain"
in, Proceedings of the European Weed Research Society Symposium, 1990;
Integrated Weed Management in Cereals. pp. 93-100. European Weed Research
society, Helsinki.
return to text
13.Heap, I. 1997. "International Survey of Herbicide- Resistant
Weeds" Proceedings of the Western Society of weed Science. Vol.
50 pp 27-29
return to text
14. Campbell, L.H., M.I. Avery, P. Donald, A.D. Evans, R.E. Green
and J.D. Wilson. 1997. "A Review of the Indirect effects of Pesticides
on Birds" JNCC Report No. 227. Joint Nature Conservation Committee,
Peterborough.
return to text
15. “Government Wildlife Advisor urges caution on Genetically
Modified Organisms - The New Agricultural Revolution” English Nature
News Release. 8 July 1998.
return to text
16. Hillbeck, A., M. Baumgartner, P.M. Fried and F. Bigler. 1998.
“Effects of transgenic Bacillus thuringiensis corn fed prey on
the mortality and developmental time of immature Chrysoperla carnea
(Neuroptera Chrysopidae)” Env. Entomol. Vol 27 pp 480-487.
return to text
17. Birch, A.N.E., I.E. Geoghegan, M.E.N. Majerus and J. Allen. 1997.
“Interactions between plant resistance genes, pest aphid populations
and beneficial aphid predators” SCRI Annual Report, 1997 pp 68-72
return to text
18. Brown, J and A P Brown, 1996. "Gene transfer between canola
(Brassica napus L. and B. campestris L.)and related weed species."
Annals of Applied Biology Vol. 129 pp 513 - 522
return to text
19. Bartsch, D and M Pohl-Orf. 1996. “Ecological aspects of
transgenic sugar beet: transfer and expression of herbicide resistance
in hybrids with wild beets” Euphytica 91 pp 55-58
return to text
20.Timmons, A M, E T O'Brien, Y M Charters, S J Dubbels, M J Wilkinson.
1995. "Assessing the risks of wind pollination from fields of GM
Brassica napus ssp. Oleifera." Euphytica S. pp 1-7
return to text
21. DOE. 1994. “Genetically modified crops and their wild relatives
- a UK perspective” GMO Research Report No.1. p.25.
return to text
22. Mangelsdorf, PC. 1974. “Corn: its origin, evolution and
improvement” Harvard Uni. Press.
return to text
23. Speech by Mr Jeff Rooker, Minister of State for Agriculture.
30 July 1998. House of Commons Hansard, 30/7/1998 Col. 626.
return to text
24. DETR News Release 3 July 1998. “GM maize field trial to
continue”
return to text
25. ACRE Annual Report No. 4. 1996/97. DETR, March 1998.
return to text
26. New Scientist, 4 April 1998. “Named and shamed” p.4
return to text
27. ACRE Annual Report No. 4: 1996/97. Annex B - ACRE members' interests.
return to text
28. Written answer provided by Angela Eagle in the House of Commons
30 April 1998. Hansard, 30/4/98 Col.179.
return to text
29. Results of MORI poll conducted on behalf of GeneWatch, July 1998.
return to text
30. Farmers Weekly, 1998. For example: “Weed control easier”
FW 13 Mar 1998, p. 71; “Lots of benefits from GM crops if seed
price right” FW 19 June 1998, p.72.
return to text
31. Crop trials run as part of an EU programme to promote GM crops
(“Familiarisation with and Acceptance of Crops incorporating Transgenic
Technologies in modern Agriculture”) showed that herbicide tolerant
oilseed rape performed the same as or worse than conventional varieties.
FACTT UK, 1997.
return to text
32. American Cyanamid, 1998. “Field trial results show economics
of weed control in Roundup Ready and Elite soybeans” Company Press
Release 24/3/1998.
return to text
33. Evidence that glufosinate is more toxic to beneficial fungi than
phytopathogenic fungi is presented in Ahmad, I and D Malloch. 1995.
"Interaction of soil microflora with the bioherbicide phosphinothricin"
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment Vol. 54 pp 165-174. The use
of glufosinate on tolerant crops could therefore remove natural plant
protecting fungi from the soil.
return to text
34. Landis, DA and W Van der Werf. 1997. “Early season predation
impacts the establishment of aphids and spread of beet yellow virus
in sugar beet” Entomophaga Vol 42 pp.499-516. Evidence is presented
to show that weed cover is directly related to predation levels on aphids
and the spread of beet yellow virus.
return to text
35. Goldburg, R, J Rissler, H Shand and C Hassebrook. 1990. “Biotechnology's
bitter harvest: Herbicide-tolerant crops and the threat to sustainable
agriculture” A report of the Biotechnology Working Group.
return to text
36. Union of Concerned Scientists, 1998. “Now or never: serious
new plans to save a natural pest control” eds M Mellon and J Rissler.
return to text
37. Richards, P. 1985. “Indigenous Agricultural Revolution”
Unwin Hyman, London.
return to text
38. “Biodiverse farming produces more” Seedling October
1997 p.6-14.
return to text
39. Nellithanam, R, J. Nellithanam and S.S. Samiti. 1998. “Return
of the Native Seeds” The Ecologist Vol 28 (1) pp 29-33.
return to text
40. The Weed Ecology Group at IACR Rothamsted. Programme Description:
Biology, ecology, genetics and control of weeds in arable agriculture,
including the study of herbicide resistance.
Contact details:
Friends of the Earth
26-28 Underwood St.
LONDON
N1 7JQ
Tel: 020 7490 1555
Fax: 020 7490 0881
Email: info@foe.co.uk
Website: www.foe.co.uk
Real Food Team
Last modified: June 2001
