with contributions from

The Case for A GM-Free Sustainable World

Published by Institute of Science in Society

PO Box 32097

London NW1 0XR, UK&

Third World Network

121-S Jalan Utama

10450 Penang, Malaysia

(c) Institute of Science in Society & Third World Network 2003

Printed by Jutaprint

2 Solok Sungei Pinang 3, Sg. Pinang

11600 Penang, Malaysia

ISBN: 0-9544923-0-8 (ISIS)

ISBN: 983-9747-99-1 (TWN)

Preface

Note

Contents

Preface i

Executive Summary v

Part 1: No Future for GM crops 1

1 Why Not GM Crops? 3

2 Escalating Problems on the Farm 7

Part 2: GM Crops Not Safe 13

3 Science & Precaution 15

4 Safety Tests on GM Foods 20

5 Transgene Hazards 23

6 Terminator Crops Spread Male Sterility 25

7 Herbicide Hazards 27

8 Horizontal Gene Transfer 31

9 The CaMV 35S Promoter 33

10 Transgenic DNA More Likely to Spread 37

11 Horizontal Transfer of Transgenic DNA 40

12 Hazards of Horizontal Gene Transfer 46

13 Conclusion to Parts 1 & 2 48

Part 3: The Manifold Benefits of Sustainable Agriculture 51

14 Why Sustainable Agriculture? 53

15 Higher or Comparable Productivity & Yields 56

16 Better Soils 62

17 Cleaner Environment 66

18 Reduced Pesticides & No Increase in Pests 68

19 Supporting Biodiversity & Using Diversity 71

20 Environmental & Economic Sustainability 76

21 Ameliorating Climate Change 79

22 Efficient, Profitable Production 82

23 Improved Food Security & Benefits to 85

Local Communities

24 Organics for Health 89

25 Conclusion to Part 3 92

References 93

Statement of the Independent Science Panel 110

GM Group (ISP-GM)

List of Members of the ISP-GM 113.iv.

Executive Summary

Why GM Free?

1. GM crops failed to deliver promised benefits

use. GM crops have cost the United States an estimated $12 billion in farm subsidies, lost sales and product recalls due to transgenic con-tamination.

2. GM crops posing escalating problems on the farm

v.3. Extensive transgenic contamination unavoidable

Extensive transgenic contamination has occurred in maize landraces

growing in remote regions in Mexico despite an official moratorium that

has been in place since 1998. High levels of contamination have since

been found in Canada. In a test of 33 samples of certified seed stocks,

32 were found contaminated.

New research shows that transgenic pollen, wind-blown and

deposited elsewhere, or fallen directly to the ground, is a major source

of transgenic contamination. Contamination is generally acknowledged

to be unavoidable, hence there can be no co-existence of transgenic

and non-transgenic crops.

4. GM crops not safe

Contrary to the claims of proponents, GM crops have not been proven

safe. The regulatory framework was fatally flawed from the start. It was

based on an anti-precautionary approach designed to expedite product

approval at the expense of safety considerations.

The principle of 'substantial equivalence', on which risk assess-ment

is based, is intended to be vague and ill-defined, thereby giving

companies complete licence in claiming transgenic products 'substan-tially

equivalent' to non-transgenic products, and hence 'safe'.

5. GM food raises serious safety concerns

There have been very few credible studies on GM food safety.

Nevertheless, the available findings already give cause for concern. In

the still only systematic investigation on GM food ever carried out in the

world, 'growth factor-like' effects were found in the stomach and small

intestine of young rats that were not fully accounted for by the trans-gene

product, and were hence attributable to the transgenic process or

the transgenic construct, and may hence be general to all GM food.

There have been at least two other, more limited, studies that also

raised serious safety concerns.

6. Dangerous gene products are incorporated into crops

Bt proteins, incorporated into 25% of all transgenic crops worldwide,

have been found harmful to a range of non-target insects. Some of

them are also potent immunogens and allergens. A team of scientists

has cautioned against releasing Bt crops for human use.

Food crops are increasingly used to produce pharmaceuticals and

vi.drugs, including cytokines known to suppress the immune system,

induce sickness and central nervous system toxicity; interferon alpha,

reported to cause dementia, neurotoxicity and mood and cognitive side

effects; vaccines; and viral sequences such as the 'spike' protein gene

of the pig coronavirus, in the same family as the SARS virus linked to

the current epidemic. The glycoprotein gene gp120 of the AIDS virus

HIV-1, incorporated into GM maize as a 'cheap, edible oral vaccine',

serves as yet another biological time-bomb, as it can interfere with the

immune system and recombine with viruses and bacteria to generate

new and unpredictable pathogens.

7. Terminator crops spread male sterility

Crops engineered with 'suicide' genes for male sterility have been pro-moted

as a means of 'containing', i.e., preventing, the spread of trans-genes.

In reality, the hybrid crops sold to farmers spread both male

sterile suicide genes as well herbicide tolerance genes via pollen.

8. Broad-spectrum herbicides highly toxic to humans and other

species

Glufosinate ammonium and glyphosate are used with the herbicide-tol-erant

transgenic crops that currently account for 75% of all transgenic

crops worldwide. Both are systemic metabolic poisons expected to

have a wide range of harmful effects, and these have been confirmed.

Glufosinate ammonium is linked to neurological, respiratory, gas-trointestinal

and haematological toxicities, and birth defects in humans

and mammals. It is toxic to butterflies and a number of beneficial

insects, also to the larvae of clams and oysters, Daphnia and some

freshwater fish, especially the rainbow trout. It inhibits beneficial soil

bacteria and fungi, especially those that fix nitrogen.

Glyphosate is the most frequent cause of complaints and poison-ing

in the UK. Disturbances of many body functions have been report-ed

after exposures at normal use levels. Glyphosate exposure nearly

doubled the risk of late spontaneous abortion, and children born to

users of glyphosate had elevated neurobehavioral defects. Glyphosate

caused retarded development of the foetal skeleton in laboratory rats.

Glyphosate inhibits the synthesis of steroids, and is genotoxic in mam-mals,

fish and frogs. Field dose exposure of earthworms caused at

least 50 percent mortality and significant intestinal damage among

surviving worms. Roundup caused cell division dysfunction that may be

vii.linked to human cancers.

The known effects of both glufosinate and glyphosate are suffi-ciently

serious for all further uses of the herbicides to be halted.

9. Genetic engineering creates super-viruses

By far the most insidious dangers of genetic engineering are inherent

to the process itself, which greatly enhances the scope and probability

of horizontal gene transfer and recombination, the main route to creat-ing

viruses and bacteria that cause disease epidemics. This was high-lighted,

in 2001, by the 'accidental' creation of a killer mouse virus in the

course of an apparently innocent genetic engineering experiment.

Newer techniques, such as DNA shuffling, are allowing geneticists

to create in a matter of minutes in the laboratory millions of recombinant

viruses that have never existed in billions of years of evolution.

Disease-causing viruses and bacteria and their genetic material

are the predominant materials and tools for genetic engineering, as

much as for the intentional creation of bio-weapons.

10. Transgenic DNA in food taken up by bacteria in human gut

There is already experimental evidence that transgenic DNA from

plants has been taken up by bacteria in the soil and in the gut of human

volunteers. Antibiotic resistance marker genes can spread from trans-genic

food to pathogenic bacteria, making infections very difficult to

treat.

11. Transgenic DNA and cancer

Transgenic DNA is known to survive digestion in the gut and to jump

into the genome of mammalian cells, raising the possibility for trigger-ing

cancer.

The possibility cannot be excluded that feeding GM products such

as maize to animals also carries risks, not just for the animals but also

for human beings consuming the animal products.

12. CaMV 35S promoter increases horizontal gene transfer

Evidence suggests that transgenic constructs with the CaMV 35S pro-moter

might be especially unstable and prone to horizontal gene trans-fer

and recombination, with all the attendant hazards: gene mutations

due to random insertion, cancer, reactivation of dormant viruses and

generation of new viruses. This promoter is present in most GM crops

viii.being grown commercially today.

13. A history of misrepresentation and suppression of scientific

evidence

There has been a history of misrepresentation and suppression of sci-entific

evidence, especially on horizontal gene transfer. Key experi-ments

failed to be performed, or were performed badly and then mis-represented.

Many experiments were not followed up, including inves-tigations

on whether the CaMV 35S promoter is responsible for the

'growth-factor-like' effects observed in young rats fed GM potatoes.

In conclusion, GM crops have failed to deliver the promised

benefits and are posing escalating problems on the farm.

Transgenic contamination is now widely acknowledged to be

unavoidable, and hence there can be no co-existence of GM and

non-GM agriculture. Most important of all, GM crops have not

been proven safe. On the contrary, sufficient evidence has

emerged to raise serious safety concerns, that if ignored could

result in irreversible damage to health and the environment. GM

crops should be firmly rejected now.

Why Sustainable Agriculture?

1. Higher productivity and yields, especially in the Third World

Some 8.98 million farmers have adopted sustainable agriculture prac-tices

on 28.92 million hectares in Asia, Latin America and Africa.

Reliable data from 89 projects show higher productivity and yields: 50-

100% increase in yield for rainfed crops, and 5-10% for irrigated crops.

Top successes include Burkina Faso, which turned a cereal deficit of

644 kg per year to an annual surplus of 153 kg; Ethiopia, where 12 500

households enjoyed 60% increase in crop yields; and Honduras and

Guatemala, where 45 000 families increased yields from 400-600 kg/ha

to 2 000-2 500 kg/ha.

Long-term studies in industrialised countries show yields for

organic comparable to conventional agriculture, and sometimes higher.

2. Better soils

Sustainable agricultural practices tend to reduce soil erosion, as well as

ix.improve soil physical structure and water-holding capacity, which are

crucial in averting crop failures during periods of drought.

Soil fertility is maintained or increased by various sustainable agri-culture

practices. Studies show that soil organic matter and nitrogen

levels are higher in organic than in conventional fields.

Biological activity has also been found to be higher in organic

soils. There are more earthworms, arthropods, mycorrhizal and other

fungi, and micro-organisms, all of which are beneficial for nutrient recy-cling

and suppression of disease.

3. Cleaner environment

There is little or no polluting chemical-input with sustainable agriculture.

Moreover, research suggests that less nitrate and phosphorus are

leached to groundwater from organic soils.

Better water infiltration rates are found in organic systems.

Therefore, they are less prone to erosion and less likely to contribute to

water pollution from surface runoff.

4. Reduced pesticides and no increase in pests

Organic farming prohibits routine pesticide application. Integrated pest

management has cut the number of pesticide sprays in Vietnam from

3.4 to one per season, in Sri Lanka from 2.9 to 0.5 per season, and in

Indonesia from 2.9 to 1.1 per season.

Research showed no increase in crop losses due to pest damage,

despite the withdrawal of synthetic insecticides in Californian tomato

production.

Pest control is achievable without pesticides, reversing crop loss-es,

as for example, by using 'trap crops' to attract stem borer, a major

pest in East Africa. Other benefits of avoiding pesticides arise from util-ising

the complex inter-relationships between species in an ecosystem.

5. Supporting biodiversity and using diversity

Sustainable agriculture promotes agricultural biodiversity, which is cru-cial

for food security and rural livelihoods. Organic farming can also

support much greater biodiversity, benefiting species that have signifi-cantly

declined.

Biodiverse systems are more productive than monocultures.

Integrated farming systems in Cuba are 1.45 to 2.82 times more pro-ductive

than monocultures. Thousands of Chinese rice farmers have

x.doubled yields and nearly eliminated the most devastating disease sim-ply

by mixed planting of two varieties.

Soil biodiversity is enhanced by organic practices, bringing bene-ficial

effects such as recovery and rehabilitation of degraded soils,

improved soil structure and water infiltration.

6. Environmentally and economically sustainable

Research on apple production systems ranked the organic system first

in environmental and economic sustainability, the integrated system

second and the conventional system last. Organic apples were most

profitable due to price premiums, quicker investment return and fast

recovery of costs.

A Europe-wide study showed that organic farming performs better

than conventional farming in the majority of environmental indicators. A

review by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

(FAO) concluded that well-managed organic agriculture leads to more

favourable conditions at all environmental levels.

7. Ameliorating climate change by reducing direct & indirect

energy use

Organic agriculture uses energy much more efficiently and greatly

reduces CO2 emissions compared with conventional agriculture, both

with respect to direct energy consumption in fuel and oil and indirect

consumption in synthetic fertilizers and pesticides.

Sustainable agriculture restores soil organic matter content,

increasing carbon sequestration below ground, thereby recovering an

important carbon sink. Organic systems have shown significant ability

to absorb and retain carbon, raising the possibility that sustainable agri-culture

practices can help reduce the impact of global warming.

Organic agriculture is likely to emit less nitrous dioxide (N2 O),

another important greenhouse gas and also a cause of stratospheric

ozone depletion.

8. Efficient, profitable production

Any yield reduction in organic agriculture is more than offset by eco-logical

and efficiency gains. Research has shown that the organic

approach can be commercially viable in the long-term, producing more

food per unit of energy or resources.

Data show that smaller farms produce far more per unit area than

xi.the larger farms characteristic of conventional farming. Though the

yield per unit area of one crop may be lower on a small farm than on a

large monoculture, the total output per unit area, often composed of

over a dozen crops and various animal products, can be far higher.

Production costs for organic farming are often lower than for con-ventional

farming, bringing equivalent or higher net returns even with-out

organic price premiums. When price premiums are factored in,

organic systems are almost always more profitable.

9. Improved food security and benefits to local communities

A review of sustainable agriculture projects in developing countries

showed that average food production per household increased by 1.71

tonnes per year (up 73%) for 4.42 million farmers on 3.58 million

hectares, bringing food security and health benefits.

Increasing agricultural productivity has been shown to also

increase food supplies and raise incomes, thereby reducing poverty,

increasing access to food, reducing malnutrition and improving health

and livelihoods.

Sustainable agricultural approaches draw extensively on tradition-al

and indigenous knowledge, and place emphasis on the farmers'

experience and innovation. This thereby utilises appropriate, low-cost

and readily available local resources as well as improves farmers' sta-tus

and autonomy, enhancing social and cultural relations within local

communities.

Local means of sale and distribution can generate more money for

the local economy. For every £1 spent at an organic box scheme from

Cusgarne Organics (UK), £2.59 is generated for the local economy; but

for every £1 spent at a supermarket, only £1.40 is generated for the

local economy.

10. Better food quality for health Organic food is safer, as organic farming prohibits routine pesticide and

herbicide use, so harmful chemical residues are rarely found.

Organic production also bans the use of artificial food additives

such as hydrogenated fats, phosphoric acid, aspartame and monosodi-um

glutamate, which have been linked to health problems as diverse

as heart disease, osteoporosis, migraines and hyperactivity.

Studies have shown that, on average, organic food has higher

vitamin C, higher mineral levels and higher plant phenolics - plant

xii.compounds that can fight cancer and heart disease, and combat age-related

neurological dysfunctions - and significantly less nitrates, a toxic

compound.

Sustainable agricultural practices have proven beneficial in

all aspects relevant to health and the environment. In addition,

they bring food security and social and cultural well-being to local

communities everywhere. There is an urgent need for a compre-hensive

global shift to all forms of sustainable agriculture.

xiii..1

Part 1: No Future for GM Crops.2.One

Why Not GM Crops?

GM crops are neither needed nor wanted

There is no longer any doubt that GM crops are not needed to feed the

world, and that hunger is caused by poverty and inequality, and not by

inadequate production of food. According to estimates by the United

Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation, there is enough food pro-duced

to feed everyone using only conventional crops, and that will

remain the case for at least 25 years and probably far into the future [2].

Furthermore, as Altieri and Rosset have argued, even if hunger is due

to a gap between food production and human population growth, cur-rent

GM crops are not designed to increase yields or for poor small

farmers, so they are unlikely to benefit from them [3]. Because the true

root cause of hunger is inequality, any method of boosting food pro-duction

that deepens inequality is bound to fail to reduce hunger [4].A

recent report by ActionAid concludes that, "The widespread adoption of

GM crops seems likely to exacerbate the underlying cause of food inse-curity,

leading to more hungry people, not fewer" [5].

More importantly, GM crops are not wanted, and for good rea-sons.

GM crops have failed to deliver the promised benefits, they are

causing escalating problems on the farm, and evidence of the worst

hazards has accumulated despite the notable lack of research on safe-ty.

At the same time, extensive evidence has emerged on the success

of sustainable approaches to agriculture, which makes clear what the

rational choice for the nation ought to be.

The world market for GM crops has been shrinking simultaneous-ly

as the acreage increased sharply since the first GM crop, the Flavr

Savr tomato, was planted in the United States in 1994, a product soon

withdrawn as a commercial disaster. During the seven-year period from

1996 to 2002, the global acreage of GM crops increased from 1.7 mil-lion

hectares to 58.7 million hectares. But only four countries account-ed

for 99% of the global GM crop acreage in 2002. The United States

grew 39.0 million hectares, (66% of global total), Argentina 13.5 million

hectares, Canada 3.5 million hectares and China 2.1 million hectares

[6].

3.4

Worldwide resistance to GM reached a climax last year when

Zambia refused GM maize in food aid despite the threat of famine.

Zambia has since reaffirmed its decision after a high-level delegation

was invited to visit several countries including the United States and

UK. As we were drafting this report, a hunger strike was in progress in

the Philippines, in protest of the commercial approval of Monsanto's Bt

maize.

Citizens' juries and other participatory democracy and social

inclusion processes have been used in India, Zimbabwe and Brazil, to

allow small farmers and marginalised rural communities to assess the

risks and desirability of GM crops, on their own terms and according to

their own criteria and notions of well-being. The results show that when

and where these events have been facilitated in a trustworthy, credible

and unbiased manner, small farmers and indigenous peoples have

rejected GM crops on the grounds that they do not need them, and that

the GM technology is unproven and does not meet their needs [7, 8].

The agricultural sector led the dramatic decline of the biotech

industry, before the industry peaked in 2000 on the back of the human

genome project. The Institute of Science in Society (ISIS) has sum-marised

the evidence in a special briefing to the UK Prime Minister's

Strategy Unit on GM, submitted in response to its public consultation on

the economic potential of GM crops [9]. Things have got worse since

for the entire industry [10].

A report released in April 2003 by Innovest Strategic Value

Advisors [11] gave Monsanto the lowest possible rating with the mes-sage

that agricultural biotechnology is a high-risk industry not worth

investing in, unless it changes its focus away from GE (genetic engi-neering,

synonymous with GM). The report states,

"Money flowing from GE companies to politicians as well as the

frequency with which GE company employees take jobs with US regu-latory

agencies (and vice versa) creates large bias potential and

reduces the ability of investors to rely on safety claims made by the US

Government. It also helps to clarify why the US Government has not

taken a precautionary approach to GE and continues to suppress GE

labelling in the face of overwhelming public support for it. With Enron

and other financial disasters, the financial community apparently

bought into company stories without looking much below the sur-face....."

"Monsanto could be another disaster waiting to happen for

investors", the report concludes..5

GM crops failed to deliver the benefits

GM crops have simply not delivered the promised benefits. That is the

consistent finding of independent research and on-farm surveys,

reviewed by agronomist Charles Benbrook in the United States since

1999 [12, 13] and other studies have borne this out [14]. Thousands of

controlled trials of GM soya gave significantly decreased yields of

between 5 to 10%, and in some locations, even 12 to 20% compared

with non-GM soya. Similar reductions in yield have been reported in

Britain for GM winter oilseed rape and sugar beet in field trials.

GM crops have not resulted in significant reductions in herbicide

and pesticide use. Roundup Ready soya required 2 to 5 times more

herbicide (measured in pounds applied per acre) than other weed

management systems. Similarly, USDA data suggest that in 2000, the

average acre of RR maize was treated with 30% more herbicide than

the average acre of non-GM maize.

Analysis of 4 years of official USDA data on insecticide use shows

a pretty clear picture [13]. While Bt cotton has reduced insecticide use

in several states, Bt corn has had little if any impacts on corn insecti-cide

use. USDA data show that corn insecticide applications directly

targeting the European corn borer increased from about 4% of acres

treated in 1995 to about 5% in 2000.

The greater cost of GM seeds, the increased herbicide/pesticide

use, yield drag, royalties on seed and reduced markets, all add up to

lost income for farmers. The first farm-level economic analysis of Bt

maize in the US revealed that between 1996 and 2001, the net loss to

farmers was $92 million or about $1.31 per acre.

A UK Soil Association report [15] released in September 2002,

estimated that GM crops have cost the United States $12 billion in farm

subsidies, lost sales and product recalls due to transgenic contamina-tion.

It summed up as follows:

"The evidence we set out suggests that....virtually every benefit

claimed for GM crops has not occurred. Instead, farmers are reporting

lower yields, continuing dependency on herbicides and pesticides, loss

of access to markets and, critically, reduced profitability leaving food

production even more vulnerable to the interests of the biotechnology

companies and in need of subsidies."

These studies have not taken into account crop failures elsewhere

in the world, the most serious in India last year [16]. Massive failures of

GM cotton, up to 100%, were reported in several Indian States, includ-.ing failure to germinate, root-rot and attacks by the American bollworm,

for which the Bt-cotton was supposed to be resistant.

6.Two

Escalating Problems on the Farm

Transgenic Instability

The massive failures of GM cotton in India, and of other GM crops else-where

are most likely due to the fact that GM crops are overwhelming-ly

unstable, a problem first highlighted in a 1994 review by Finnegan

and McElroy [17]:

"While there are some examples of plants which show stable

expression of a transgene these may prove to be the exceptions to the

rule. In an informal survey of over 30 companies involved in the com-mercialisation

of transgenic crop plants....almost all of the respondents

indicated that they had observed some level of transgene inaction.

Many respondents indicated that most cases of transgene inactivation

never reach the literature."

There is, nevertheless, a substantial scientific literature on trans-genic

instability [18, 19]. Whenever the appropriate molecular tools

have been applied to investigate the problem, instability is invariably

found, and that is so even in cases where transgenic stability has been

claimed. In one publication [20] stating in the abstract that "transgene

expression was stable in lines of all the rice genotypes", the data pre-sented

actually showed that at most 7 out of 40 (18%) of the lines may

be stable to the R3 generation [21]. This paper, like many others, also

misused the failure to deviate significantly from arbitrarily set

'Mendelian ratios' as a sign of Mendelian inheritance, or genetic stabil-ity.

This is such an elementary mistake in statistics and genetics that

students could fail an exam for it.

There are two major causes of transgenic instability. The first has

to do with the defence mechanisms protecting the integrity of the

organism that 'silence' or inactivate foreign genes integrated into the

genome, so that they are no longer expressed. Gene silencing was first

discovered in connection with integrated transgenes in the early 1990s,

and is now known to be part of the organism's defence against viral

infections.

The second major cause of instability has to do with the structur-al

instability of the transgenic constructs themselves, their tendency to

7.fragment, to break along weak artificial joints and to recombine incor-rectly,

often with other DNA that happens to be around. That's perhaps

the more serious from the safety point of view, as it enhances horizon-tal

gene transfer and recombination (see later).

Yet another source of instability has been more recently discov-ered

[18]. There appear to be certain 'receptive hotspots' for transgenic

integration in both the plant and the human genomes. These receptive

hotspots may also be 'recombination hotspots', prone to breaking and

rejoining. That, too, would make inserted transgenes more likely to

come loose again, to recombine, or to invade other genomes.

Investigations also show that transgene instability may arise in

later generations, and are not necessarily 'selected out' during early

generations of growth. This can result in poor and inconsistent per-formances

of the GM crops in the field, a problem likely to be under-reported

by farmers who settle for compensation with a gagging clause.

Volunteers and weeds

Triple herbicide-tolerant oilseed rape volunteers were first discovered in

Alberta, Canada in 1998, just two years after single herbicide-tolerant

GM crops were planted [22]. A year later, these multiple herbicide tol-erant

volunteers were found in 11 other fields [23]. The United States

only started growing herbicide-tolerant GM oilseed rape in 2001.

Research in Idaho University reported that similar multiple gene-stack-ing

had occurred in experimental plots over two years, and during the

same period, weeds with two herbicide tolerant traits were also found.

Many other problems with weeds have been identified since (sum-marised

in ref. 24). Glyphosate-resistant marestail infested over

200 000 acres of cotton in west Tennessee, USA in 2002, or 36% of all

cotton acreage in the state, and some 200 000 acres of soya beans

were also affected. The problem with herbicide-tolerant volunteers and

weeds is such that companies have been recommending spraying with

additional herbicides. US agricultural experts reveal that between 75%

and 90% of GM maize growers are using a product called Liberty ATZ

- a mixture of Aventis' weed killer glufosinate ammonium and Atrazine,

the traditional herbicide used on maize crops that has been a problem

pesticide for decades [25]. Atrazine is on Europe's Red List and Priority

List for hormone disrupting effects in animals. Glufosinate itself is far

from benign (see later).

from Monsanto is based on using two insecticides with their Bt crops,

on grounds that Bt-crops could produce resistant strains of insect pests

and "numerous problems remain...under actual field conditions".

Recent research shows that transgenes from Bt sunflower cross-ing

into wild relatives made the latter hardier and more prolific, with the

potential of becoming super-weeds [26].

Bt resistance

Bt crops are genetically engineered to produce insecticidal proteins

derived from genes of the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). The

likelihood of target pests of Bt crops developing resistance to Bt toxins

rapidly is so great and real that in the United States, resistance man-agement

strategies are adopted, involving planting 'refugia' of non-Bt

crops and developing Bt crops with high levels of expression, or multi-ple

toxins in the same crop.

Unfortunately, pests have developed resistance to multiple toxins,

or cross resistances to different toxins [27], and recent research reveals

that resistant strains are even able to obtain additional nutritional value

from the toxin, thus possibly making them more serious pests than

before.

Extensive transgenic contamination

In November 2001, Berkeley plant geneticists Ignacio Chapela and

David Quist published a report in Nature [28] presenting evidence that

maize landraces, growing in remote regions in Mexico, were contami-nated

with transgenes, despite the fact that an official moratorium on

growing GM maize has been imposed in the country.

This sparked off a concerted attack by pro-biotech scientists,

allegedly orchestrated by Monsanto [29]. Nature withdrew support for

that paper in February 2002, an act unprecedented in the whole histo-ry

of scientific publication, for a paper that was neither wrong, nor chal-lenged

on its major conclusion. Subsequent research by Mexican sci-entists

confirmed the finding, showing that the contamination was much

more extensive than previously suspected [30]. Ninety-five percent of

the sites sampled were contaminated, with degrees of contamination

varying from 1% to 35%, averaging 10 to 15%. The companies involved

have refused to provide molecular information or probes for research,

which would sort out which are the liable parties for the damages

9.caused. Nature refused to publish these confirmatory results.

Indeed, one main factor considered by the Innovest report (see

above) that would damn Monsanto is the substantial investor losses

that could arise from unintended transgenic contamination.

Contamination is inevitable, the report states, and could bankrupt

Monsanto and other biotech companies, leaving the rest of society to

deal with the problem.

According to Ignacio Chapela, who finds himself caught up in the

ensuing controversy with his University tenure still hanging in the bal-ance,

transgenic contamination in Mexico is still growing.

The extent of contamination of non-GM seeds is alarming. A

spokesperson from Dow Agroscience was reported as saying that "the

whole seed system is contaminated" in Canada [31]. Dr. Lyle Friesen of

the University of Manitoba tested 33 samples representing 27 pedi-greed

canola seed stocks and found 32 contaminated [32].

Tests on pollen flow found that wheat pollen will stay airborne for

one hour at the minimum, which means it could be carried huge dis-tances

depending on the wind speed. Canola pollen is even lighter, and

can remain airborne for 3 to 6 hours. A 35 mile/hour wind is not atypi-cal,

which "makes a real mockery of a separation distance of tens or

even hundreds of metres", said Percy Schmeiser, celebrated Canadian

farmer who was ordered by the Canadian court to pay 'damages' to

Monsanto, despite his claim that his neighbour's GM crop had contam-inated

his fields. Schmeiser lost his appeal in the Federal Court, but

has just won his right to be heard in the Supreme Court of Canada

Organic farmers in Saskachewan have also started legal pro-ceedings

against Monsanto and Aventis for contaminating their crops

and ruining their organic status.

The European Commission ordered the study on the co-existence

of GM and non-GM crops in May 2000 from the Institute for Prospective

Technological Studies of the EU Joint Research Centre. The study was

completed and delivered to the European Commission in January

2002, with the recommendation that it not be made public. The sup-pressed

study, leaked to Greenpeace [33], confirmed what we already

know: coexistence of GM farming and non-GM or organic farming

would be impossible in many cases. Even in cases where it is techni-cally

feasible, it would require costly measures to avoid contamination

and increase production costs for all farmers, especially small farmers.

Transgenic contamination is not limited to cross-pollination. New

10.research shows that transgenic pollen, wind-blown and deposited else-where,

or that has fallen directly to the ground, is a major source of

transgenic contamination [34]. Such transgenic DNA was even found in

fields where GM crops have never been grown, and soil samples con-taminated

with pollen was demonstrated to transfer transgenic DNA to

soil bacteria (see later).

Why is contamination such a big issue? The immediate answer is

that consumers are not accepting it. The more important reason is

there are outstanding safety concerns.

11.12.Part 2: GM Crops Not Safe

13.14.Three

Science & Precaution

Precaution, common sense & science

We are told there is no scientific evidence that GM is harmful. But is it

safe? That is the question we should ask. Where something can cause

serious irreversible harm, it is right and proper for scientists to demand

evidence demonstrating that GM is safe beyond reasonable doubt.

That is usually dignified as 'the precautionary principle', but for scien-tists

and for the public, it is just common sense [35-37].

Scientific evidence is no different from ordinary evidence, and

should be understood and judged in the same way. Evidence from dif-ferent

sources and of different kinds has to be weighed and combined

to guide policy decisions and actions. That's good science as well as

good sense.

Genetic engineering involves recombining, i.e., joining together in

new combinations, DNA from different sources, and inserting them into

the genomes of organisms to make "genetically modified organisms",

or "GMOs" [38].

GMOs are unnatural, not just because they have been produced

in the laboratory, but because many of them can only be made in the

laboratory, quite unlike what nature has produced in the course of bil-lions

of years of evolution.

Thus, it is possible to introduce new genes and gene products,

many from bacteria, viruses and other species, or even genes made

entirely in the laboratory, into crops, including food crops. We have

never eaten these new genes and gene products, nor have they ever

even been part of our food chain.

The artificial constructs are introduced into cells by invasive meth-ods

that result in random integration into the genome, giving rise to

unpredictable, random effects, including gross abnormalities in both

animals and plants, unexpected toxins and allergens in food crops. In

other words, there is no possibility for quality control. This problem is

compounded by the overwhelming instability of transgenic lines, which

makes risk assessment virtually impossible.

15.Anti-precautionary risk assessment

Many of the problems would have been identified if regulators had

taken risk assessment seriously. But as pointed out by Ho and

Steinbrecher [39], there were fatal flaws in the procedure of food safe-ty

assessment from the start, as laid down in the Joint FAO/WHO

Biotechnology and Food Safety Report resulting from an Expert

Consultation in Rome September 30 to October 4, 1996, which has

served as the main model ever since.

That Report was criticised for :

Making contentious claims for the benefits of the technology.

Failing to assume responsibility for, or to address major

aspects of food safety, such as the use of food crops for pro-ducing

pharmaceuticals and industrial chemicals, as well as

issues of labelling and monitoring.

Restricting the scope of safety considerations to exclude

known hazards, such as the toxicity of broad-spectrum herbi-cides.

Claiming erroneously that genetic engineering does not differ

from conventional breeding.

Using a 'principle of substantial equivalence' for risk assess-ment

that is both arbitrary and unscientific.

Failing to address long-term impacts on health and food

security.

Ignoring existing scientific findings on identifiable hazards,

especially those resulting from the horizontal transfer and

recombination of transgenic DNA.

All that makes for an anti-precautionary 'safety assessment' designed

to expedite product approval at the expense of safety considerations.

The principle of 'substantial equivalence' is a sham in

terms of risk assessment

The biggest faults are in the principle of 'substantial equivalence' that

is supposed to serve as the backbone of risk assessment. The Report

stated,

"Substantial equivalence embodies the concept that if a new food

or food component is found to be substantially equivalent to an existing

food or food component, it can be treated in the same manner with

16.respect to safety (i.e., the food or food component can be concluded to

be as safe as the conventional food or food component)."

As can be seen, the principle is vague and ill defined. But what fol-lows

makes clear that it is intended to be as flexible, malleable and

open to interpretation as possible.

"Establishment of substantial equivalence is not a safety assess-ment

in itself, but a dynamic, analytical exercise in the assessment of

the safety of a new food relative to an existing food. The comparison

may be a simple task or be very lengthy depending upon the amount of

available knowledge and the nature of the food or food component

under consideration. The reference characteristics for substantial

equivalence comparisons need to be flexible and will change over time

in accordance with the changing needs of processors and consumers

and with experience."

In other words, there would be neither required nor specified tests

for establishing substantial equivalence (SE). Companies would be free

to compare whatever is the most expeditious for claiming SE, and to

carry out the least discriminating tests that would conceal any substan-tial

difference.

In practice, the principle of SE has allowed the companies to,

Do the least discriminating tests such as crude compositions

of proteins, carbohydrates and fats, amino acids, selected

metabolites.

Avoid detailed molecular characterization of the transgenic

insert to establish genetic stability, gene expression profiles,

metabolic profiles, etc., that would have revealed unintended

effects.

Claim that the transgenic line is substantially equivalent to the

non-transgenic line except for the transgene product, and to

carry out risk assessment solely on the transgene product,

there by, again, ignoring any and all unintended changes.

Avoid comparing the transgenic line to its non-transgenic

'parent' grown under the same range of environmental

conditions.

Compare the transgenic line to any variety within the species,

and even to an abstract entity made up of the composite of

selected characteristics from all varieties within the species, so

17.that the transgenic line could have the worst features of every

variety and still be considered SE.

Compare different components of a transgenic line with differ-ent

species, as in the case of a transgenic canola engineered

to produce lauric acid. But "other fatty acids components are

Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) when evaluated

individually because they are present at similar levels in other

commonly consumed oils."

No wonder the Report could go on to state,

"Up to the present time, and probably for the near future, there have

been few, if any examples of foods or food components produced using

genetic modification which could be considered to be not substantially

equivalent to existing foods or food components."

Transgenic instability makes regulation based on this principle of

SE even more ridiculous. A paper presented a year earlier at a WHO

workshop [40] stated, "The main difficulty associated with the biosafety

assessment of transgenic crops is the unpredictable nature of transfor-mation.

The unpredictability raises the concern that transgenic plants

will behave in an inconsistent manner when grown commercially."

Consequently, transgenic potatoes, that on field trials "showed marked

deformities in shoot morphology and poor tuber yield involving a low

number of small, malformed tubers" nonetheless gave "virtually no

changes in tuber quality" under the tests applied, and was therefore

passed as 'substantially equivalent'.

Contrary to what has been widely claimed, therefore, GM foods

have never passed any required tests that could have established they

are safe. The Food and Drugs Administration (FDA) in the United

States had decided back in 1992 that genetic engineering was just an

extension of conventional breeding, and hence safety assessments

were unnecessary. Although the first transgenic crop, Flavr Savr toma-to

went through a nominal safety assessment (which it failed, see later),

all subsequent crops went through a voluntary consultation procedure.

Belinda Martineau, the scientist who conducted the safety studies

on Flavr Savr tomato at the company Calgene, has published a book

[41] in which she stated that "Calgene's tomato should not serve as a

safety standard for this new industry. No single genetically engineered

product should." She strongly decries the lack of data on health and

environmental impacts of transgenic crops. "And simply proclaiming

18.that 'these foods are safe and there is no scientific evidence to the con-trary'

is not the same as saying 'extensive tests have been conducted

and here are the results.'"

The US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) released a report in

February 2002 criticizing the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) for

inadequately protecting the environment from the risks of GM plants

[42]. It said that the USDA review processes lack scientific justification

and are not applied uniformly; the assessment of environmental risks,

particularly from plants genetically engineered to be insect resistant,

was "generally superficial"; and the process "hampers external review

and transparency" by keeping environmental assessments confidential

as trade secrets. The report calls on the USDA to make its review

process "significantly more transparent and rigorous", to seek evalua-tion

of its findings from outside scientific experts and to solicit greater

input from the public.

There are, indeed, very few independent studies dedicated to the

safety of GM crops to health and the environment. Nevertheless, suffi-cient

evidence has accumulated to indicate that GM crops are not safe.

We are definitely well into the early warning period at which com-mon

sense, or the application of the precautionary principle, can still

avert and ameliorate the disasters that are likely to occur in the longer

term [43].

19.Four

Safety Tests on GM Foods

Paucity of published data

There is a distinct scarcity of published data relevant to the safety of

GM foods. Not only that, the scientific quality of what has been pub-lished

is, in most instances, not up to the usually expected standards of

good science.

In responding to the Scottish Parliament's recent investigation into

the health impacts of GM crops [44], Stanley Ewen, histopathologist at

Grampian University Hospital Trust, and leader of the Colorectal

Cancer Screening Pilot in Grampian Region, summed up the situation,

"It is unfortunate that very few animal trials of GM human food are

available in the public domain in scientific literature. It follows that GM

foods have not been shown to be without risk and, indeed, the available

scientific experimental results demonstrate cause for concern."

Two reports prior to 1999 revealed harmful effects on animals fed

GM foods. The first was a report submitted to US Food and Drug

Administration on Flavr Savr GM tomatoes fed to rats. Several of the

rats developed erosions (early ulcers) of the lining of the stomach sim-ilar

to those seen in the stomach of older humans on aspirin or similar

medication. In humans, substantial life threatening haemorrhage may

occur from these early ulcers.

The second paper, published in a peer-reviewed journal, was on

feeding raw GM potatoes to month-old male mice. The results revealed

proliferative growth in the lower small intestine [45].

The study by Pusztai and co-workers

No substantive studies on the health impacts on GM food had been

carried out, until the then Scottish Office of Agriculture, Environment

and Fisheries Department, SOAEFD funded the project headed by

Pusztai at the Rowett Institute, to undertake a major investigation into

the possible environmental and health hazards of GM-potatoes that

had been transformed by British scientists using a gene taken from

snowdrop bulbs [46].

20.21

The studies revealed that the two transgenic lines of GM-pota-toes,

which originated from the same transformation experiment, and

were both resistant to aphid pests, were not substantially equivalent in

composition to parent line potatoes, nor to each other. The crude, poor-ly

defined and unscientific concept of "substantial equivalence" that

regulators rely on in risk assessment has been criticised from its con-ception

(see above). It has certainly outlived its usefulness.

More importantly, the results showed that diets containing GM

potatoes had, in some instances, interfered with the growth of the

young rats and the development of some of their vital organs, inducing

changes in gut structure and function, and reducing their immune

responsiveness to injurious antigens. In contrast, the animals fed on

diets containing the parent, non-GM potatoes or these potatoes sup-plemented

with the gene product had no such effects. Some of the

results have been published since [47-51]. The latest paper [51] is a

comprehensive review on safety tests involving GM foods, including the

unpublished experiments on GM tomatoes submitted to the FDA,

described earlier.

The findings of Pusztai and colleagues have been attacked by

many within the scientific establishment, but never disproved by repeat-ing

the work and publishing the results in peer-reviewed journals. They

have clearly demonstrated that it is possible to perform toxicological

studies, and that the safety of GM-foodstuffs must be established in

short- and long-term feeding, metabolic and immune-response studies

with young animals, as these are most vulnerable and the most likely

to respond to, and show up, any nutritional and metabolic stresses

affecting development, a view shared by other scientists.

Multivariate statistical analysis of the results carried out inde-pendently

by Scottish Agricultural Statistics Service suggested that the

major potentially harmful effects of the GM potatoes were only in part

caused by the presence of the snowdrop lectin transgene, and that the

method of genetic transformation, and/or the disturbances in the pota-to

genome also made major contributions to the changes observed.

Ewen and Pusztai's paper, published in The Lancet [48] aroused

much controversy, and it seems that attempts to discredit Pusztai by

members of the Royal Society continue to this present day.

Ewen and Pusztai measured the part of the small bowel lining that

produces new cells and found that the length of the new cell compart-ment

had increased significantly in GM fed rats, but not in control rats.fed non-GM potatoes. The increased production of cells had to be due

to a growth factor effect induced by the genetic modification within the

potatoes. (Growth factors are proteins that promote cell growth and

multiplication, that, if uncontrolled, results in cancer.) Similar effects

were observed in the stomach lining [51].

Statistical analysis further revealed that the growth factor effect

was not due to the expressed transgenic protein, the snowdrop lectin,

but was the effect of the gene construct inserted into the DNA of the

potato genome. In other words, non-GM potatoes spiked with snow-drop

lectin simply did not have the same effect.

The construct includes not only the new gene, but also marker

genes and a powerful promoter from the cauliflower mosaic virus

(CaMV), which is at the centre of a major debate concerning its safety

(see later).

Ewen [44] pointed out that although the whole and intact virus

appears to be harmless, as we have been eating cauliflower type veg-etables

for millennia, "the use of the separate infectious part of the virus

has not been tested in animals".

Further possible undesirable effects may involve the human liver's

response to hepatitis virus, as the cauliflower mosaic virus and hepati-tis

B virus belong to the same family of pararetroviruses, with closely

similar genomes and a distinctive life cycle.

That and other potential hazards of the CaMV promoter will be

dealt with in more detail later.

22.23

Five

Transgene Hazards

Bt toxins

The most obvious question on safety is with regard to the transgene

and its product introduced into GM crops, as they are new to the

ecosystem and to the food chain of animals and human beings.

The Bt toxins from Bacillus thuringiensis, incorporated in food and

non-food crops, account for about 25% of all GM crops currently grown

worldwide. It was found to be harmful to mice, butterflies and lacewings

up the food chain [27]. Bt toxins also act against insects in the Order of

Coleoptera (beetles, weevils and styloplids), which contains some 28

600 species, far more than any other Order. Bt plants exude the toxin

through the roots into the soil, with potentially large impacts on soil

ecology and fertility.

Bt toxins may be actual and potential allergens for human beings.

Some field workers exposed to Bt spray experienced allergic skin sen-sitization

and produced IgE and IgG antibodies. A team of scientists

has cautioned against releasing Bt crops for human use. They demon-strated

that recombinant Cry1Ac protoxin from Bt is a potent systemic

and mucosal immunogen, as potent as cholera toxin [52].

A Bt strain that caused severe human necrosis (tissue death)

killed mice within 8 hours, from clinical toxic-shock syndrome [53]. Both

Bt protein and Bt potato harmed mice in feeding experiments, damag-ing

their ileum (part of the small intestine) [45]. The mice showed

abnormal mitochondria, with signs of degeneration and disrupted

microvilli (microscopic projections on the cell surface) at the surface lin-ing

the gut.

Because Bt or Bacillus thuringiensis and Bacillus anthracis

(anthrax species used in biological weapons) are closely related to

each other and to a third bacterium, Bacillus cereus, a common soil

bacterium that causes food poisoning, they can readily exchange plas-mids

(circular DNA molecules containing genetic origins of replication

that allow replication independent of the chromosome) carrying toxin

genes [54]. If B. anthracis picked up Bt genes from Bt crops by hori-.zontal gene transfer (see later), new strains of B. anthracis with unpre-dictable

properties could arise.

'Pharm' crops

Other hazardous genes and bacterial and viral sequences are incorpo-rated

into our food and non-food crops as vaccines and pharmaceuti-cals

in 'next generation' GM crops [55-62]. These pharm crops include

those expressing cytokines, known to suppress the immune system,

induce sickness and central nervous system toxicity, as well as inter-feron

alpha, which is reported to cause dementia, neurotoxicity and

mood and cognitive side effects. Some contain viral sequences such as

the 'spike' protein gene of the pig coronavirus, in the same family as the

SARS virus linked to the current global epidemic [63, 64].

The glycoprotein gene gp120 of the AIDS virus HIV-1, incorporat-ed

into GM maize as a 'cheap, edible oral vaccine', is yet another bio-logical

time-bomb. There is a lot of evidence that this gene can inter-fere

with the immune system, as it has homology to the antigen-bind-ing

variable regions of the immunoglobulins, and has recombination

sites similar to those of the immunoglobulins. Furthermore, these

recombination sites are also similar to the recombination sites present

in many viruses and bacteria, with which the gp120 can recombine to

generate deadly pathogens [65-68].

Bacterial and viral DNA

A hitherto neglected source of hazard - in GM crops, though not in gene

therapy where it is recognized as something to avoid - is the DNA from

bacteria and their viruses, which have a high frequency of the CpG

dinucleotide [24]. These CpG motifs are immunogenic and can cause

inflammation, septic arthritis and promotion of B cell lymphoma and

autoimmune disease [69-73]. Yet many genes introduced into GMOs

are from bacteria and their viruses, and these pose other risks as well

(see below).

24.Six

Terminator Crops Spread Male Sterility

'Suicide' genes for sterility

In the interest of avoiding tedious semantic arguments, 'terminator

crops' here refer to any transgenic crop engineered with a 'suicide'

gene for male, female or seed sterility, for the purpose of preventing

farmers from saving and replanting seeds, or protecting patented traits.

The public first became aware of terminator technology in patents

jointly owned by the US Department of Agriculture and Delta and Pine

Land Company. There were massive protests worldwide, and

Monsanto, which acquired the Delta and Pine Land patent rights,

backed down from developing the terminator crops described in that

particular patent. However, as Ho and Cummins were to learn, there

are many ways to engineer sterility, each the subject of a separate

patent.

It transpired that terminator crops have been field tested in

Europe, Canada and the US since the early 1990s, and several were

already commercially released in North America [74]. The GM oilseed

rape, both spring and winter varieties, that form the main part of the

Farm Scale Evaluations in the United Kingdom are engineered to be

male sterile.

GM oilseed rapes are terminator crops

The male sterility system in these GM oilseed rapes consists of three

lines.

The male sterile line is maintained in a 'hemizygous' state, i.e.,

with only one copy of the 'suicide' gene, barnase, joined to a glufosi-nate-

tolerance gene. The barnase gene is driven from a promoter

(gene switch) that's active only in the anther or male part of the flower.

The expression of the barnase gene in the anther gives rise to the pro-tein

barnase, an RNAse (enzyme that breaks down RNA), which is a

potent cell poison. The cell dies and stops anther development, so no

pollen is produced. This male sterile line is perpetrated in the hemizy-gous

state by crossing to a non-GM variety, and using glufosinate-25.ammonium to kill off half the plants in the offspring generation that do

not have a copy of the H-barnase transgene joined to it.

The male restorer line is homozygous (with two copies) for the

'sterility-restorer' gene, barstar, also joined to the glufosinate-tolerance

gene. The barstar gene too, is placed under the control of the special

promoter that's active in the anther. Its expression gives the barstar

protein that's a specific inhibitor of barnase, thereby neutralising the lat-ter's

activity.

Crossing the male-sterile line to the male-restorer line produces a

F1 hybrid, in which the barnase is neutralised by barstar, thus restoring

anther development to produce pollen.

It can be shown that the F1 hybrid actually spreads both the her-bicide

tolerance gene and the suicide gene for male sterility in its

pollen, with potentially devastating impacts on both agricultural and

natural biodiversity. It makes a mockery of the UK and US govern-ments'

promotion of these plants as a way to 'contain' or 'prevent' the

spread of transgenes. The real purpose of this kind of terminator engi-neering

is to protect corporate patents.

26.Seven

Herbicide Hazards

Herbicide profits

More than 75% of all GM crops currently grown worldwide are engi-neered

to be tolerant to broad-spectrum herbicides manufactured by

the same companies that make most of their profits from the sales of

the herbicides. These broad-spectrum herbicides not only kill plants

indiscriminately, they are also harmful to practically all species of ani-mal

wildlife and to human beings.

Glufosinate ammonium

Glufosinate ammonium or phosphinothricin, is linked to neurological,

respiratory, gastrointestinal and haematological toxicities as well as

birth defects in humans and mammals [75]. It is toxic to butterflies and

a number of beneficial insects, also to the larvae of clams and oysters,

Daphnia and some freshwater fish, especially the rainbow trout. It

inhibits beneficial soil bacteria and fungi, that fix nitrogen.

The loss of insects and plants would have knock-on effects on

birds and small animal life.

In addition, some plant pathogens were found to be highly resist-ant

to glufosinate while organisms antagonistic to those pathogens

were seriously and adversely affected. This could have catastrophic

impacts on agriculture.

The glufosinate tolerant plants contain the pat (phosphinothricin

acetyl transferase) gene, which inactivates phosphinothricin by adding

an acetyl group to it, to make acetylphosphinothricin. The latter accu-mulates

in the GM plant, and is a completely new metabolite in the

crop, as well as for the entire food chain leading up to human beings,

the risks of which have not been considered.

Data supplied by AgrEvo, which became Aventis and now Bayer

CropScience, show that micro-organisms in the gut of warm-blooded

animals can remove the acetyl group and regenerate the toxic herbi-cide.

Phosphinothricin inhibits the enzyme glutamine synthetase, which

converts the essential amino acid, glutamic acid to glutamine. The net

27.result of the action of glufosinate is that ammonia and glutamate

accumulate at the expense of glutamine. It is the accumulation of

ammonia that is the lethal action in plants.

In mammals, the consequences of inhibition of glutamine syn-thetase

are more associated with the increased levels of glutamate,

and decreased levels of glutamine. Circulating ammonia is removed in

the liver by the urea cycle. However, the brain is highly sensitive to the

toxic effects of ammonia and the removal of excess ammonia depends

on its incorporation into glutamine. Glutamate is a major neurotrans-mitter,

and such large disturbance to its metabolism is bound to impact

on health.

These known effects are sufficient to halt all field trials of GM

crops immediately, until critical questions about the metabolism, stor-age

and reconversion of the N-acetylphosphinothricin have been fully

answered for all pat gene-containing products.

Glyphosate

The other major herbicide used in conjunction with GM crops,

glyphosate, is no better [76].

Glyphosate kills plants by inhibiting the enzyme, 5-enolpyruvyl-shikimate-

3-phosphate synthetase (EPSPS), critical for the biosynthe-sis

of aromatic amino acids such as phenylalanine, tyrosine and tryp-tophan,

vitamins, and many secondary metabolites such as folates,

ubiquinone and naphthoquinone [77]. The shikimate pathway takes

place in the chloroplasts of green plants. The killing action of the herbi-cide

requires that the plant be growing and exposed to light.

GM crops modified to be tolerant to Monsanto's formulation of

glyphosate, called "Roundup Ready", are modified with two main

genes. One gene imparts reduced sensitivity to glyphosate and the

other enables the plant to degrade glyphosate. The expression of both

genes is directed to the chloroplasts, the site of the herbicide activity,

by adding the coding sequences of a plant-derived 'transit peptide'.

The first gene encodes a bacteria-derived version of the plant

enzyme involved in the shikimate biochemical pathway. Unlike the plant

enzyme, which is sensitive to glyphosate, resulting in suppression of

growth or death of the plant, the bacterial enzyme is insensitive to

glyphosate. The second gene, also bacterial, codes for an enzyme that

degrades glyphosate, and its coding sequence has been altered to

enhance glyphosate-degrading activity.

28.The shikimate-chorismate pathway is not found in humans and

mammals, and therefore represents a novel target; though it is present

in a variety of micro-organisms. However, glyphosate acts by prevent-ing

the binding of the metabolite, phosphoenol pyruvate, PEP, to the

enzyme site [78]. PEP is a central metabolite present in all organisms

including humans. Glyphosate, therefore, has the potential to disrupt

many important enzyme systems that utilise PEP, including energy

metabolism and the synthesis of key membrane lipids required in nerve

cells.

Glyphosate is the most frequent cause of complaints and poison-ing

in the UK [79]. Suicide attempts have been successful with as little

as 100 millilitres of a 10 to 20% solution. Widespread disturbances of

many body systems have been reported after exposures at normal use

levels. These include balance disorder, vertigo, reduced cognitive

capacity, seizures, impaired vision, smell, hearing and taste,

headaches, drops in blood pressure, body-wide twitches and tics, mus-cle

paralysis, peripheral neuropathy, loss of gross and fine motor skills,

excessive sweating and severe fatigue [80].

An epidemiological study in Ontario farm populations showed that

glyphosate exposure nearly doubled the risk of late spontaneous abor-tion

[81]. Children born to users of glyphosate were found to have ele-vated

neurobehavioral defects [82]. Glyphosate caused retarded devel-opment

of the foetal skeleton in laboratory rats [83].

Other experimental and animal studies suggest that glyphosate

inhibits the synthesis of steroids [84], and is genotoxic in mammals [85,

86], fish [87, 88] and frogs [89, 90]. Field dose exposure of earthworms

caused at least 50 percent mortality and significant intestinal damage

among surviving worms [91]. A recent paper reported that Roundup

caused cell division dysfunction that may be linked to human cancers

[92].

As reviewed in reference 76, the nitrogen-fixing symbiont in trans-genic

and non-transgenic soya is sensitive to glyphosate, and early

application of glyphosate led to decreased crop biomass and nitrogen.

Glyphosate application at elevated temperature (around 35 o C) to

Roundup Ready soya resulted in meristem damage, which is related to

increased transport of the herbicide to the meristem.

Glyphosate application in conventional weed control led to

destruction and local extinction of endangered plant species. In forest

ecosystems, it reduces bryophytes and lichens significantly.

29.Glyphosate treatment of bean seedlings resulted in short-term increas-es

in dampening-off pathogens in treated soil.

Glyphosate application to control invasive species along tidal flats

gave unexpected secondary effects. After spraying, the herbicide in

sediment declined by 88%, while in the target perennial grass, the her-bicide

increased 591%, and was stored in the rhizomes. Glyphosate

persists in soil and groundwater and was found in well water in sites

adjacent to sprayed areas.

There is a wealth of published scientific studies showing that the

massive increase in use of glyphosate in conjunction with GM crops

poses a significant threat to human and animal health and to the envi-ronment.

30.Eight

Horizontal Gene Transfer

Horizontal gene transfer & epidemics

Horizontal gene transfer, the direct transfer of genetic material into the

genomes of organisms, whether of the same or totally unrelated

species, is by far the most serious safety issue that's unique to genet-ic

engineering [93].

The world has been whipped up into hysteria over terrorist attacks

and 'weapons of mass destruction' since September 11, 2001.

Governments want to ban publication of sensitive scientific research

results, and a group of major life sciences editors and authors has con-curred.

Some scientists even suggest an international body to police

research and publication [65]. But few have acknowledged that genet-ic

engineering itself is inherently dangerous, as first pointed out by the

pioneers of genetic engineering in the Asilomar Declaration in the mid

1970s, and as some of us have been reminding the public and policy-makers

more recently [94, 95].

But what caught the attention of the mainstream media was the

report in January 2001 of how researchers in Australia 'accidentally'

created a deadly mouse virus that killed all its victims in the course of

manipulating a harmless virus. "Disaster in the making: An engineered

mouse virus leaves us one step away from the ultimate bioweapon",

was the headline in the New Scientist article. The editorial showed

even less restraint: "The genie is out, biotech has just sprung a nasty

surprise. Next time, it could be catastrophic."

That, and the current SARS epidemic remind us that horizontal

gene transfer and recombination create new viruses and bacteria that

cause diseases, and if genetic engineering does anything, it is to great-ly

enhance the scope and tendency for horizontal gene transfer and

recombination.

Genetic engineering enhances the scope and tendency for

horizontal gene transfer

In the first place, genetic engineering involves the rampant recombi-31.nation of genetic material from widely diverse sources that would oth-erwise

have very little opportunity to mix and recombine in nature.

Some newer techniques, for example, 'DNA shuffling' [96, 97] will cre-ate

in the matter of minutes millions of new recombinants in the labo-ratory

that have never existed in billions of years of evolution. There is

no limit to the sources of DNA that can be shuffled in this way.

In the second place, disease-causing viruses and bacteria and

their genetic material are the predominant materials and tools of genet-ic

engineering, as much as for the intentional creation of bio-weapons.

And this includes antibiotic resistance genes that make infections more

difficult to treat.

And finally, the artificial constructs created by genetic engineering

are designed to cross species barriers and to jump into genomes, i.e.,

to further enhance and speed up horizontal gene transfer and recom-bination,

now acknowledged to be the major route to creating new dis-ease

agents, possibly much more important than point mutations which

change isolated bases in the DNA.

Add to that the inherent instability of transgenic DNA mentioned

earlier, which makes it more likely to break and recombine, and we

begin to realise why we don't need bio-terrorists when we have

genetic engineers.

32.Nine

The CaMV 35S Promoter

'Recombination hotspot'

Some transgenic constructs are less stable than others, such as those

containing the cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV) 35S promoter.

The CaMV infects plants of the cabbage family. One of its pro-moters,

the 35S promoter, has been widely used in GM crops since the

beginning of plant genetic engineering, before some of its worrying fea-tures

came to light. The most serious is its possession of a 'recombi-nation

hotspot', where it tends to recombine with other DNA; although

definitive evidence for that did not appear until much later.

Since the early 1990s, major doubts have arisen over the safety

of viral genes incorporated into GM crops to make crops resistant to

viral attack. Many of the viral genes tended to recombine with other

viruses to generate new and at times super-infectious viruses.

In 1999, definitive evidence for the recombination hotspot in the

CaMV 35S promoter came from work published independently by two

research groups. This was highly significant in view of the findings of

Ewen and Pusztai reviewed earlier, suggesting that the damage to

young rats fed GM potatoes could be due to the transformation process

itself or to the transgenic construct.

Ho et al reviewed the safety implications of the CaMV 35S pro-moter,

pointing out that its recombination hotspot is flanked by multiple

motifs known to be involved in recombination, which are similar to other

recombination hotspots, including the borders of the Agrobacterium T

DNA vector most frequently used in making transgenic plants. The sus-pected

mechanism of recombination - double-stranded DNA breaks fol-lowed

by repair - requires little or no DNA sequence homologies, and

recombination between viral transgenes and infecting viruses has been

amply demonstrated. In addition, the CaMV 35S promoter functions

efficiently in all plants, as well as green algae, yeast and E. coli. It has

a modular structure, with parts common to, and interchangeable with

promoters of many other plant and animal viruses.

These findings suggested that transgenic constructs with the

33.CaMV 35S promoter might be especially unstable and prone to hori-zontal

gene transfer and recombination, with all the attendant hazards:

gene mutations due to random insertion, cancer, reactivation of dor-mant

viruses and generation of new viruses, some of which could

account for the observations described by Ewen and Pusztai [44, 46,

48, 51].

When Ho et al's paper [98] was accepted for publication, the

Journal, Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease, put out a press

release on its website, labelling it 'hot topic'. Within a day, someone by

the name of Klaus Amman appeared to have organised at least nine

critiques that rebounded around the Internet, ranging from the abusive

and condescending to the relatively moderate. It later transpired that

Klaus Amman is a key player in establishing (or, as we perceive, under-mining)

biosafety standards on the international scene, and holds many

posts in organisations funded by the biotech industry.

Ho et al answered all the criticisms in a paper that was circulated

on the Internet, and subsequently published in the same scientific jour-nal.

The critics have failed to respond to this day.

Unfortunately, the most outrageous and abusive remarks were

incorporated into one 'analysis' piece written by an editor of Nature

biotechnology under "Business and regulatory news" [99]. That 'analy-sis',

concocted entirely of hearsay and opinions, contained such defam-atory,

libellous statements that the journal had to give Ho et al a right to

reply when challenged. The reply was eventually published several

months later [100], along with the editor's 'apology' that he had failed to

cite their rebuttal, but was actually another attack on them. This time,

Nature biotechnology refused to let them reply.

All of the substantive scientific criticisms eventually turned up in a

paper published in the journal where the original paper appeared, co-authored

by Roger Hull and Phil Dale, a member of the UK Advisory

Committee on Novel Foods and Processes (ACNFP) [101]. Their main

criticisms boiled down to the following.

The criticisms were thoroughly rebutted in a paper that was longer

than the original, which appeared in the same journal soon afterwards

[101]. And no further response followed. In fact, critics were careful

never to mention the rebuttal.

It was pointed out, among other things, that people have not been

eating CaMV 35S promoter plucked from its natural genetic and evolu-tionary

context and incorporated into transgenic DNA.

34.The fact that plants are "loaded" with pararetroviral sequences

similar to CaMV and other potentially mobile elements can only make

things worse. Pararetroviruses are viruses that use reverse transcrip-tase,

but do not depend on integrating into the host genome for repli-cation.

Pararetroviruses include a family that contains the human

pathogen, hepatitis B virus. The CaMV 35S promoter could activate

dormant viruses like hepatitis B, which was also known to have inte-grated

into some human genomes, and appeared to be associated with

the disease.

Most, if not all of the elements integrated into the genome would

have been 'tamed' in the course of evolution and hence are no longer

mobile. But integration of transgenic constructs containing the 35S

promoter may mobilize the elements. The elements may in turn provide

helper-functions to destabilize the transgenic DNA, and may also serve

as substrates for recombination to generate more exotic invasive ele-ments.

Evidence has emerged, since, that integration of foreign genes

into the genome associated with the genetic modification can indeed

activate transposons and proviral sequences, leading to destabilisation

of the genome [103]. So Ho et al were not wide off the mark.

In the course of debating with the critics, Ho and co-workers found

even more damning evidence [104]. It turns out that although the CaMV

virus infects only plants in the cabbage family, its 35S promoter is

promiscuously active in species across the living world, not just bacte-ria,

algae, fungi and plants, but also animal and human cells, as they

discovered in a scientific paper dating back to 1990. Plant geneticists

who have incorporated the CaMV 35S promoter into practically all GM

crops now grown commercially were apparently unaware of that, and

are still not admitting to it in public.

The UK Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment

(ACRE) has no excuse for omitting the information in its latest Report

[105] reiterating "no evidence of harm", as Ho has drawn attention to it

many times, both in written submissions and in oral evidence present-ed

at several open hearings. Behind the scenes, however, the CaMV

35S promoter has been quietly withdrawn. It no longer appears in most

of the GM crops under development.

The controversy surrounding the transgenic contamination of

Mexican landraces is not so much that the contamination had occurred,

rather, it is the possibility that, because the transgenic constructs were

35.unstable, they could be, according to a critic [106], "fragmenting and

promiscuously scattering throughout genomes." All the transgenic

maize constructs that might have been responsible for the contamina-tion

contained the CaMV 35S promoter, which was why the promoter

could be used to test for transgenic contamination. Such fragmentation

and scattering of unstable DNA throughout the genome are known to

activate dormant proviruses and transposons (see above), causing

DNA rearrangements, deletions, translocations and other disturbances,

which could destabilise the genomes of the landraces, driving the lan-draces

towards extinction.

36.Ten

Transgenic DNA More Likely to Spread

Transgenic DNA versus natural DNA

Transgenic DNA is different from natural DNA in many respects, all of

which contribute to its increased propensity for horizontal transfer into

genomes of unrelated organisms, where it may also recombine with

new genes (Box 1) [93].

37

Box 1

Transgenic DNA more likely to spread horizontally

Transgenic DNA often contains new combinations of genetic

material that have never existed.

Transgenic DNA has been designed to jump into genomes.

The unnatural gene constructs tend to be structurally unstable

and hence prone to break and join up or recombine with other

genes.

The mechanisms that enable foreign gene constructs to jump

into the genome enable them to jump out again and reinsert at

another site or in another genome. For example, the enzyme

integrase, which catalyzes the insertion of viral DNA into the

host genome, also functions as a disintegrase, catalyzing the

reverse reaction. These integrases belong to a superfamily of

similar enzymes that are present in all genomes, from viruses

and bacteria to higher plants and animals. Recombinases of

transposons are similar.

The borders of the most commonly used vector for transgenic

plants, the T-DNA of Agrobacterium, are recombination

hotspots (sites that tend to break and join). In addition, a

recombination hotspot is also associated with the cauliflower

mosaic virus (CaMV) promoter and many terminators (genetic

signals for ending transcription), which means that the whole or

parts of the integrated DNA will have an increased propensity

for secondary horizontal gene transfer and recombination..Evidence that transgenic DNA is different

There has been only one experiment ever carried out to test the

hypothesis that transgenes are the same (or not) as mutants induced

by conventional means (mutagenesis), such as exposure to X-rays and

chemical mutagens, which cause changes in the base sequence of

DNA.

Bergelson and colleagues [107] obtained a mutant for herbicide-tolerance

by conventional mutagenesis in a laboratory strain of

Arabidopsis, and created transgenic lines by introducing the mutant

gene, spliced into a vector, into host plant cells.

They then compared the rate at which transgenic and non-trans-genic

mutant plants spread the herbicide-tolerance trait to normal, wild

type plants grown nearby. They found that the transgenes from

transgenic plants were up to 30 times more likely to escape and spread

than the same gene obtained by mutagenesis.

The results are difficult to explain in terms of ordinary cross-polli-38

Recent evidence indicates that foreign gene constructs tend to

integrate at recombination hotspots in the genome, which

again, would tend to increase the chances of transgenic DNA

disintegrating and transferring horizontally.

Transgenic DNA often has other genetic signals, such as ori-gins

of replication left over from the plasmid vector. These are

also recombination hotspots, and in addition, can enable the

transgenic DNA to be replicated independently as a plasmid

that's readily transferred horizontally among bacteria.

The metabolic stress on the host organism due to the continu-ous

over-expression of the foreign genes linked to aggressive

promoters such as the CaMV 35S promoter will also increase

the instability of the transgenic DNA, thereby facilitating hori-zontal

gene transfer.

Transgenic DNA is typically a mosaic of DNA sequences from

many different species and their genetic parasites; these

homologies mean that it will be more prone to recombine with,

and successfully transfer to, the genomes of many species as

well as their genetic parasites. Homologous recombination typ-ically

occurs at one thousand to one million times the frequen-.nation. Was it because introducing the transgene by means of a vector

led to all kinds of unexpected effects? Did the transgenic plants pro-duce

more pollen, or more viable pollen? Was the pollen from trans-genic

plants more attractive to bees?

Another possibility for the increased spread of transgenes is hori-zontal

gene transfer, via insects visiting the plants for pollen and nec-tar,

or simply feeding on the sap or other parts of successive transgenic

and wild type plants. Bergelson said they had no evidence for horizon-tal

gene transfer, but could not rule it out. But they have not gone on to

investigate that possibility.

Regardless of the manner in which the transgenes had spread,

the experiment did demonstrate that transgenic DNA does not behave

in the same way as non-transgenic DNA.

39.Eleven

Horizontal Transfer of Transgenic DNA

Experiments demonstrating horizontal transfer of

transgenic DNA

Horizontal transfer of transgenes and antibiotic-resistant marker genes

from genetically engineered crop plants into soil bacteria and fungi had

been demonstrated in the laboratory by the mid-1990s. Transfer of

transgenes to fungi was achieved simply by growing the fungi with the

GM plant, and transfer to bacteria achieved by applying total DNA from

the GM plant to cultures of bacteria.

By the late 1990s, successful transfers of a kanamycin-resistance

marker gene to the soil bacterium Acinetobacter were obtained with

total DNA extracted from homogenized leaves in a range of transgenic

plants [108]: Solanum tuberosum (potato), Nicotiana tabacum (tobac-co),

Beta vulgaris (sugar beet), Brassica napus (oil-seed rape), and

Lycopersicon esculentum (tomato). It was estimated that about 2 500

copies of the kanamycin-resistance genes (from the same number of

plant cells) were sufficient to successfully transform one bacterium,

despite the fact that there was a 6 x 10 6 -fold excess of plant DNA pres-ent.

Positive results of horizontal gene transfer in this system were

obtained even with just 100 microlitres of ground-up plant leaf added to

the bacteria.

Obfuscation & misrepresentation

But from the beginning, obfuscation and misrepresentation reigned

supreme. Despite the misleading title in a paper by Schluter, Futterer

and Potrykus, which states that horizontal gene transfer in their exper-iment

"occurs, if at all, at an extremely low-frequency" [109], the data

demonstrated a high frequency of gene transfer of 5.8 x 10 -2 per recip-ient

bacterium under optimum conditions.

But the authors then proceeded to calculate a theoretical gene

transfer frequency of 2.0 x 10 -17 , or close to zero, under extrapolated

"natural conditions". That, they have done by assuming that different

factors acted independently, and by inventing the 'natural conditions',

which are largely unknown and unpredictable, and, by the authors' own

40.admission, synergistic effects from combinations of factors cannot be

ruled out.

This paper was subsequently widely cited as showing that hori-zontal

gene transfer does not happen.

Field experiment provides prima facie evidence

In 1999, researchers in Germany [110] had already reported the first,

and still only, field-monitoring experiment in the world, that provided

prima facie evidence that transgenic DNA had transferred from the GM

sugar beet plant debris to bacteria in the soil. Ho circulated a detailed

review of this evidence, and duly submitted it to the UK government's

science advisors. They dismissed that evidence, and worse, cited it as

evidence that horizontal gene transfer did not occur.

DNA not only persists in the external environment, both in the soil

and in water; it is not broken down sufficiently quickly in the digestive

system to prevent transgenic DNA transferring to microorganisms res-ident

in the gut of animals.

Transgenic DNA transfer in the mouth

Such transfer could start in the mouth. Mercer et al reported in 1999

[111] that a genetically engineered plasmid had a 6 to 25% chance of

surviving intact after 60 minutes of exposure to human saliva.

Moreover, the partially degraded plasmid DNA was capable of trans-forming

Streptococcus gordonii, one of the bacteria that normally live in

the human mouth and pharynx. The frequency of transformation

dropped exponentially with time, but it was still significant after 10 min-utes.

Human saliva actually contains factors that promote transforma-tion

in bacteria resident in the mouth.

This research was done in the test-tube, and the authors clearly

stated that, "further investigations are needed to establish whether

transformation of oral bacteria can occur at significant frequencies in

vivo." However, no such studies have been carried out since, which is

difficult to understand, as the original research was commissioned by

the UK government, as part of the Novel Foods Programme.

Another group in Leeds University, however, got a grant from the

then newly established Food Standards Agency to investigate the pos-sibility

of horizontal gene transfer in the stomachs of ruminants [112],

where food remains for long periods of time. The researchers found

that transgenic DNA was rapidly broken down in the fluids from the

41.42

rumen and the silage, but that nevertheless, horizontal transfer could

take place before the transgenic DNA was completely degraded.

They also found that transgenic DNA was very slow to break down

in saliva, and therefore, the mouth could be a major site for horizontal

gene transfer. This confirmed the results obtained by Mercer et al [111].

But once again, no follow-up work was done in live animals. Was it a

case of avoiding doing the obvious experiments for fear of finding pos-itive

results that would be more difficult to dismiss?

Transfer of transgenic DNA through the wall of the

intestine & the placenta

There's more to the scope of horizontal gene transfer as revealed in the

existing scientific literature. Döerfler's group in Germany have carried

out a series of experiments on the fate of foreign DNA in food, begin-ning

in the early 1990s.

They fed mice DNA, either isolated from the bacteria virus M13, or

as the cloned gene for the green fluorescent protein inserted into a

plasmid. They found that a small, albeit significant percentage of the

viral and plasmid DNA not only escaped complete degradation in the

gut, but could pass through the wall of the intestine into the blood

stream, to get into some white blood cells, spleen and liver cells, and

become incorporated into the mouse cell genome [113]. When fed to

pregnant mice, the foreign DNA could be found in some cells of the foe-tuses

and the newborn animals, showing that it had gone through the

placenta [114].

This work underlines the hazards of all kinds of naked DNA,

including viral genomes, created by the genetic engineering industry,

that Norwegian virologist and science advisor to the Norwegian gov-ernment,

Terje Traavik [115], and others [94, 95] have drawn attention

to.

In a paper published in 1998, Döerfler and Schubbert stated [114],

"The consequences of foreign DNA uptake for mutagenesis [generat-ing

mutations] and oncogenesis [causing cancer] have not yet been

investigated". The relevance of this remark is striking with regard to the

cancer cases identified among the recipients of gene therapy in the lat-ter

part of 2002 [116]. It makes the point that exposures to transgenic

DNA carry the same risks, regardless of whether it is from gene thera-py

or from GM foods. Gene therapy is just the genetic modification of

human beings, and uses constructs very similar to those for the genet-ic

modification of plants and animals..Avoidance of definitive experiments

In a report published in 2001 [117], the fate of ordinary soybean DNA

from soybean leaves was compared with that of transgenic plasmid

DNA. It confirmed earlier findings. Transgenic plasmid DNA invaded

the cells of many tissues.

But like most of the research projects reviewed, this one too,

seemed to have stopped short of attempting to obtain clearer, definitive

results, which could easily have been done by feeding mice transgenic

soya, and monitoring for the fate of both the transgenic DNA and the

plant's own DNA. That would have gone some way to settle the issue

Ho and Cummins have repeatedly raised: that transgenic DNA may be

more invasive of cells and genomes than natural DNA.

Indeed, as Ewen points out [44], the possibility cannot be exclud-ed

that feeding GM products such as maize to animals also carries

risks. Cow's milk may contain GM derivatives and even a fillet steak

may contain active GM material, as DNA is extraordinarily stable, and

is often not destroyed by heat. DNA has even been recovered recently

from soil sediments 300 000 to 400 000 years old [118]. The lead

researcher Professor Alan Cooper of Oxford University, in his recent

visit to New Zealand, is reported to have said [119], "The ability of DNA

to persist in soils for so long was completely underestimated . . . and

illustrates how little we know," and "a great deal more research is need-ed

before we could predict the effect of releasing GE plants."

Transgenic DNA in food transferred to bacteria in human gut

The UK government eventually commissioned research to look for

horizontal gene transfer into bacteria in the gut of human volunteers

and found positive results.

The research in question is the final part of the UK Food

Standards Agency (FSA) project on evaluating the risks of GMOs in

human foods [120].

Transgenic DNA transferring to bacteria in the human gut is not at

all unexpected. We already know that DNA persists in the gut, and that

bacteria can readily take up foreign DNA, from previous research

reviewed here. Why had our regulators waited so long to commission

the research? And when they did, the scientists appeared to have

designed the experiment so as to stack the odds heavily against find-ing

a positive result [121].

For example, the method for detecting transgenic DNA depended

43.on amplifying a small part - 180bp - of the entire transgenic DNA insert

that was at least ten or twenty times as long. So, any other fragment of

the insert would not be detected, nor would a fragment that did not

overlap the whole 180bp amplified, or that had been rearranged. The

chance of obtaining a positive result is 5% at best, and likely to be

much, much less. Thus, a negative finding with this detection method

most probably would not indicate the absence of transgenic DNA.

Despite that, they still found a positive result, which the UK Food

Standards Agency immediately dismissed and obfuscated. The FSA

was reported to have claimed, "the findings had been assessed by sev-eral

Government experts who had ruled that humans were not at risk."

In a statement on its website, the FSA said that the study had con-cluded

it is "extremely unlikely" that GM genes can end up in the gut of

people who eat them.

Agrobacterium vector a vehicle for gene escape

That is not all. Recent evidence strongly suggests that the most com-mon

method of creating transgenic plants may also serve as a ready

route for horizontal gene transfer [122, 123].

Agrobacterium tumefaciens, the soil bacterium that causes crown

gall disease, has been developed as a major gene transfer vector for

making transgenic plants. Foreign genes are typically spliced into the

T-DNA - part of a plasmid of A. tumefaciens called Ti (tumour-inducing)

- which ends up integrated into the genome of the plant cell that sub-sequently

develops into a tumour. That much was known, at least since

1980.

But further investigations revealed that the process whereby

Agrobacterium injects T-DNA into plant cells strongly resembles conju-gation,

or mating between bacterial cells.

Conjugation, mediated by certain bacterial plasmids, requires a

sequence called the origin of transfer (oriT) on the DNA that's trans-ferred.

All the other functions can be supplied from unlinked sources,

referred to as 'trans-acting functions' (or tra). Thus, 'disabled' plasmids,

with no trans-acting functions, can nevertheless be transferred by

'helper' plasmids that carry genes coding for the trans-acting functions.

And that's the basis of a complicated vector system devised, involving

Agrobacterium T-DNA, which has been used for creating numerous

transgenic plants.

But it soon transpired that the left and right borders of the T-DNA

44.are similar to oriT, and can be replaced by it. Furthermore, the dis-armed

T-DNA, lacking the trans-acting functions (virulence genes that

contribute to disease), can be helped by similar genes belonging to

many other pathogenic bacteria. It seems that the trans-kingdom gene

transfer of Agrobacterium and the conjugative systems of bacteria are

both involved in transporting macromolecules, not just DNA but also

protein.

That means transgenic plants created by the T-DNA vector sys-tem

have a ready route for horizontal gene escape, via Agrobacterium,

helped by the ordinary conjugative mechanisms of many other bacteria

that cause diseases, which are present in the environment.

In fact, the possibility that Agrobacterium can serve as a vehicle

for horizontal gene escape was first raised in 1997 in a study spon-sored

by the UK Government [124], which reported it was extremely dif-ficult

to get rid of the Agrobacterium in the vector system after transfor-mation.

Treatment with an armoury of antibiotics and repeated subcul-ture

over 13 months failed to get rid of the bacterium. Furthermore,

12.5% of the Agrobacterium remaining still contained the binary vector

(T-DNA and helper plasmid), and were hence fully capable of trans-forming

other plants. This research was later published in a scientific

journal [125].

Several other observations make gene escape via Agrobacterium

even more likely. Agrobacterium not only transfers genes into plant

cells; there is possibility for retrotransfer of DNA from the plant cell to

Agrobacterium [126].

High rates of gene transfer are associated with the plant root sys-tem

and the germinating seed, where conjugation is most likely [127].

There, Agrobacterium could multiply and transfer transgenic DNA to

other bacteria, as well as to the next crop to be planted. These possi-bilities

have yet to be investigated empirically.

Finally, Agrobacterium attaches to and genetically transforms sev-eral

human cell lines [128]. In stably transformed HeLa cells (a human

cell line derived originally from a cancer patient), the integration of T-DNA

occurred at the right border, exactly as would happen when it is

transferred into a plant cell genome. This suggests that Agrobacterium

transforms human cells by a mechanism similar to that which it uses for

transforming plants cells.

45.Twelve

Hazards of Horizontal Gene Transfer

A summary

As is clear from the past chapters, the hazards that could arise from the

horizontal transfer of transgenic DNA are unique to genetic engineer-ing,

and are summarised in Box 2.

Experiments that appear to have been avoided so far

These critiques have been communicated to ACRE and ACNFP,

together with a series of obvious experiments that the Food Standards

Agency should commission, in a paper tabled at an open meeting

organised by ACNFP [129]. These are described in a slightly revised

form in Box.3.

46

Box 2

Potential hazards of horizontal gene transfer from genetic

engineering

Generation of new cross-species viruses that cause disease

Generation of new bacteria that cause disease

Spread of drug- and antibiotic-resistance genes among the

viral and bacterial pathogens, making infections untreatable

Random insertion into genomes of cells, resulting in harmful

effects including cancer

Reactivation and recombination with dormant viruses (present

in all genomes) to generate infectious viruses

Spread of dangerous new genes and gene constructs that

have never existed

Destabilisation of genomes into which transgenes have

transferred

Multiplication of ecological impacts due to all of the above.47

Box 3

Missing experiments on the safety of GM food and crops

The following are some definitive experiments that would inform on

the safety of GM food and crops. They seem to have been intention-ally

avoided so far.

1. Feeding experiments similar to those carried out by Pusztai's

team, using well-characterized transgenic soya and/or maize

meal feed, with appropriate, unbiased monitoring for transgenic

DNA in the faeces, blood and blood cells, and post-mortem

histological examinations that include tracking transfer of trans-genic

DNA into the genome of cells. As an added control, non-transgenic

DNA from the same GM feed sample should also

be monitored. In addition, the role of the CaMV 35S promoter

in producing the 'growth-factor-like' effects in young rats should

be investigated.

2. Feeding trials on human volunteers using well-characterized

transgenic soya and/or maize meal feed, with appropriate,

unbiased monitoring for transgenic DNA and horizontal gene

transfer in the mouth and in the faeces, blood and blood cells.

As an added control, non-transgenic DNA from the same GM

feed sample should also be monitored.

3. Investigation on the stability of transgenic plants in successive

generations of growth, especially those containing the CaMV

35S promoter, using appropriate quantitative molecular tech-niques.

4. Full molecular characterisation of all transgenic lines to estab-lish

uniformity and genetic stability of the transgenic DNA

insert(s), and comparison with the original data supplied by the

biotech company to gain approval for field trials or for commer-cial

release.

5. Tests on all transgenic plants created by the Agrobacterium T-DNA

vector system for the persistence of the bacteria and the

vectors. The soil in which the transgenic plants have been

grown should be monitored for gene escape to soil bacteria.

The potential for horizontal gene transfer to the next crop via

the germinating seed and root system should be carefully

monitored..Thirteen

Conclusion to Parts 1 & 2

Our extensive review of the evidence has convinced us that GM crops

are neither needed nor wanted, that they have failed to deliver their

promises, and instead, are posing escalating problems on the farm.

There is no realistic possibility for GM and non-GM agriculture to co-exist,

as evident from the level and extent of transgenic contamination

that has already occurred, even in a country like Mexico where an offi-cial

moratorium has been in place since 1998.

More importantly, GM crops are unacceptable because they are

by no means safe. They have been introduced without the necessary

safeguards and safety assessments through a deeply flawed regulato-ry

system based on a principle of 'substantial equivalence' that is aimed

at expediting product approval rather than serious safety assessment.

Despite the lack of data on safety tests of GM foods, the available

findings already give cause for concerns over the safety of the trans-genic

process itself that are not being addressed. At the same time,

gene products introduced into food and other crops as biopesticides,

accounting for 25% of all GM crops worldwide, are now found to be

strong immunogens and allergens, and dangerous pharmaceuticals

and vaccines are being introduced into food crops in open field trials.

Under the guise of transgene containment, crops have been engi-neered

with 'suicide genes' that make plants male-sterile. In reality,

these crops spread both herbicide tolerance genes and male sterile

suicide genes via pollen, with potentially devastating consequences on

agricultural and natural biodiversity.

About 75% of the GM crops planted worldwide are tolerant to one

or the other of two broad-spectrum herbicides, glufosinate ammonium

and glyphosate. Both are systemic metabolic poisons expected to have

a wide range of harmful effects on humans and other living organisms,

and these effects have now been confirmed.

Glufosinate ammonium is linked to neurological, respiratory, gas-trointestinal

and haematological toxicities, and birth defects in humans

and mammals. Glyphosate is the most frequent cause of complaints

and poisoning in the UK, and disturbances of many body functions

48.have been reported after exposures at normal use levels. Glyphosate

exposure nearly doubled the risk of late spontaneous abortion, and

children born to users of glyphosate had elevated neurobehavioral

defects. Glyphosate caused retarded development of the foetal skele-ton

in laboratory rats. It inhibits the synthesis of steroids, and is geno-toxic

in mammals, fish and frogs. Field dose exposure of earthworms

caused at least 50 percent mortality and significant intestinal damage

among surviving worms. Roundup causes cell division dysfunction that

may be linked to human cancers.

These known effects are sufficient to call a halt to all uses of both

herbicides.

By far the most insidious dangers of genetic engineering are

inherent to the process itself, which greatly enhances the scope and

probability of horizontal gene transfer and recombination, the main

route to creating viruses and bacteria that cause disease epidemics.

Newer techniques, such as DNA shuffling are allowing geneticists

to create in a matter of minutes in the laboratory millions of recombinant

viruses that have never existed. Disease-causing viruses and bacteria

and their genetic material are the predominant materials and tools of

genetic engineering, as much as for the intentional creation of bio-weapons.

There is already experimental evidence that transgenic DNA from

plants has been taken up by bacteria in the soil and in the gut of human

volunteers. Antibiotic resistance marker genes can spread from trans-genic

food to pathogenic bacteria, making infections very difficult to

treat.

Transgenic DNA is known to survive digestion in the gut and to

jump into the genome of mammalian cells, raising the possibility for

triggering cancer.

Evidence suggests that transgenic constructs with the CaMV 35S

promoter, present in most GM crops, might be especially unstable and

prone to horizontal gene transfer and recombination, with all the atten-dant

hazards: gene mutations due to random insertion, cancer, reacti-vation

of dormant viruses and generation of new viruses.

There has been a history of misrepresentation and suppression of

scientific evidence, especially on horizontal gene transfer. Key experi-ments

failed to be performed, or were performed badly and then mis-represented.

Many experiments failed to be followed up, including

investigations on whether the CaMV 35S promoter is responsible for

49.the 'growth-factor-like' effects observed in young rats fed GM potatoes.

For all those reasons, GM crops should be firmly rejected as a

viable option for the future of agriculture.

50.Part 3. The Manifold Benefits of Sustainable Agriculture

51.52.Fourteen

Why Sustainable Agriculture?

'Modern' agriculture is characterised by extensive, large-scale mono-culture,

and depends on high chemical inputs and intensive mecha-nization.

Although productive as defined by the one-dimensional meas-ure

of 'yield' of a single crop, its over-reliance on chemical pesticides,

herbicides and synthetic fertilisers comes with a string of negative

impacts on health and the environment: health risks to farm workers,

harmful chemical residues on food, reduced biodiversity, deterioration

of soil and water quality, and increased risks of crop disease. 'Modern'

monoculture also often marginalizes small farmers, particularly those in

developing countries, the majority of farmers worldwide. GM crops,

now thrown into the package, are threatening further health and envi-ronmental

hazards (see Part 2).

In contrast, sustainable agricultural approaches place the empha-sis

on a diversity of local natural resources, and on local autonomy of

farmers to decide what they will grow and how they can improve their

crops and livelihood. Agriculture is sustainable when it is ecologically

sound, economically viable, socially just, culturally appropriate,

humane and based on a holistic approach. A brief summary of key cri-teria,

as elaborated by Pretty and Hine [130] is presented in Box 4.

Sustainable agricultural approaches may come under many

names - agroecology, sustainable agriculture, organic agriculture, eco-logical

agriculture, biological agriculture - but have these criteria in

common.

For example, organic farming largely excludes synthetic pesti-cides,

herbicides and fertilisers. Instead, it is an ecosystem approach

that manages ecological and biological processes, such as food web

relations, nutrient cycling, maintaining soil fertility, natural pest control

and diversifying crops and livestock. It relies on locally or farm-derived

renewable resources, while remaining environmentally and ecological-ly

viable.

While many in developed countries may be familiar with certified

organic production, this is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of land

managed organically but not certified as such. De facto or non-certified

53.54

organic farming is usually prevalent in resource-poor and/or agricultur-ally

marginal regions where local populations have limited engagement

with the cash economy [131]. Farmers here rely on local natural

resources to maintain soil fertility and to combat pests and diseases.

They have sophisticated systems of crop rotation, soil management,

and pest and disease control, based on traditional knowledge.

Likewise, agroecology relies on technologies that are cheap,

accessible, risk averting and productive in marginal environments; that

enhance ecological and human health; and that are culturally and

socially acceptable [132]. It emphasises biodiversity, nutrient recycling,

synergy among crops, animals, soils and other biological components,

as well as regeneration and conservation of resources. Agrocecology

relies on indigenous farming knowledge and incorporates low-input

modern technologies to diversify production. The approach combines

ecological principles and local resources in managing farming systems,

providing an environmentally sound and affordable way for small farm-ers

to intensify production in marginal areas. These agroecological

alternatives can solve the agricultural problems that GM crops claim to

solve, but do so in a much more socially equitable and environmental-ly

harmonious manner [3].

There are countless studies as well as scientific research papers

documenting the successes and benefits of sustainable agricultural

approaches, including those of organic farming, which have been

reviewed recently by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the

United Nations [133] and ISIS [134].

We summarise the evidence on some of the benefits of agroecol-ogy,

sustainable agriculture and organic farming for the environment

and health, as well as for food security and the social well-being of

farmers and local communities. It makes the case for a comprehensive

shift to these sustainable agriculture approaches in place of GM crops..55

Box 4

Sustainable agriculture Makes best use of nature's goods and services by integrating

natural, regenerative processes e.g., nutrient cycling,

nitrogen fixation, soil regeneration and natural enemies of pests

Minimises non-renewable inputs (pesticides and fertilisers) that

damage the environment or harm human health

Relies on the knowledge and skills of farmers, improving their

self-reliance

Promotes and protects social capital - people's capacities to

work together to solve problems

Depends on locally-adapted practices to innovate in the face of

uncertainty

Is multifunctional and contributes to public goods, such as

clean water, wildlife, carbon sequestration in soils, flood protec-tion

and landscape quality.Fifteen

Higher or Comparable Productivity &

Yields

A closer look at 'yields'

Organic agriculture is often criticised for having lower yields compared

to conventional monoculture. While that may be the case in industri-alised

countries, such comparisons are misleading because they dis-count

the costs of conventional monoculture in degraded land, water,

biodiversity and other ecological services on which sustainable food

production depends [133].

And merely looking at yields for single crops - as critics often do -misses

other indicators of sustainability and higher actual productivity

per unit area, particularly with agroecological systems that often have

a diverse mixture of crops, trees and animals together on the land [135]

(see "Efficient, Profitable Production"). It is often possible to obtain the

highest yield of a single crop by planting it alone - in a monoculture. But

while a monoculture may allow for a high yield of one crop, it produces

nothing else of use to the farmer [136].

In any case, because of the damage done by conventional farm-ing,

a transition period is usually required to restore the land for the full

benefits of sustainable farming. After the system is restored, compara-ble

or higher yields are obtained. With low-input, traditional agriculture,

conversion to sustainable approaches is normally accompanied by

immediately increased yields.

In fact, just reducing average farm size in most countries would

stimulate increases in production far beyond the most optimistic biotech

industry projections for GM crops. Small farms are more productive,

more efficient, and contribute more to economic development than the

large farms characteristic of conventional monoculture [136]. Small

farmers are also better stewards of natural resources.

Research from around the world shows that smaller farms are

from two to ten times more productive per hectare than larger farms,

which tend to be inefficient, extensive monocultures. Yield increases

are achieved by using technological approaches based on agroecolog-56.57

ical principles that emphasize diversity, synergy, recycling and integra-tion;

and social processes that emphasize community participation and

empowerment. As average farm sizes are usually in the larger, more

inefficient range, genuine land reform offers an opportunity to boost

production while lessening poverty.

Outstanding successes in developing countries

The success of sustainable agriculture has been concretely demon-strated

in a review of 208 projects and initiatives from 52 countries

[130]. Some 8.98 million farmers have adopted sustainable agriculture

practices on 28.92 million hectares in Africa, Asia and Latin America.

Reliable data on yield changes in 89 projects show that farmers have

achieved substantial increases in food production per hectare, about

50-100% for rainfed crops, though considerably greater in a few cases,

and 5-10% for irrigated crops (though generally starting from a higher

absolute yield base). These projects included both certified and non-certified

organic systems, and integrated as well as near-organic sys-tems.

In all cases where reliable data were available, there were

increases in per hectare productivity for food crops and maintenance of

existing yields for fibre [133].

Some specific examples of increased yields are as follows:

Soil and water conservation in the drylands of Burkina Faso

has transformed formerly degraded lands. The average family

has shifted from a cereal deficit of 644 kg per year (equivalent

to 6.5 months of food shortage) to producing an annual surplus

of 153 kg.

Through the Cheha Integrated Rural Development Project in

Ethiopia, some 12 500 households have adopted sustainable

agriculture, resulting in a 60% increase in crop yields.

In Madagascar, a system of rice intensification has improved

rice yields from some 2 t/ha to 5,10 or 15 t/ha, without

recourse to purchased inputs of pesticides or fertilisers.

In Sri Lanka, some 55 000 households on about 33 000 ha

have adopted sustainable agriculture, with substantial reduc-tions

in insecticide use. Yields have increased by 12-44% for

rice and 7-44% for vegetables.

45 000 families in Honduras and Guatemala have increased

crop yields from 400-600 kg/ha to 2 000-2 500 kg/ha using

green manures, cover crops, contour grass strips, in-row.58

tillage, rock bunds and animal manures.

The states of Santa Caterina, Paraná and Rio Grande do Sol

in southern Brazil have focused on soil and water conserva-tion

using contour grass barriers, contour ploughing and green

manures. Maize yields have risen by 67% from 3 to 5

tonne/ha, and soybeans by 68% from 2.8 to 4.7 t/ha.

The high mountain regions of Bolivia are some of the most dif-ficult

areas in the world for growing crops. Despite this, farm-ers

have increased potato yields by three fold, particularly by

using green manures to enrich the soil.

Other case studies of organic and agroecological practices show

dramatic increases in yields as well as benefits to soil quality, reduction

in pests and diseases and general improvement in taste and nutrition-al

content [131]. For example:

In Brazil, use of green manures and cover crops increased

maize yields by 20-250%.

In Tigray, Ethiopia, yields of crops from composted plots were

3-5 times higher than those treated only with chemicals.

Yield increases of 175% are reported from farms in Nepal

adopting agroecological practices.

In Peru, restoration of traditional Incan terracing has led to

increases of 150% for a range of upland crops. Farmers are

able to produce bumper crops despite floods, droughts and

the lethal frosts common at altitudes of nearly 4 000 meters

[135].

Projects in Senegal involving 2 000 farmers promoted stall-fed

livestock, composting systems, green manures, water harvest-ing

systems and rock phosphate. Millet and peanut yields

increased dramatically, by 75-195% and 75-165%, respective-ly.

Because the soils have greater water retaining capacity,

yield fluctuations are less pronounced between high and low

rainfall years.

In Santa Catarina, Brazil, focus has been on soil and water

conservation, using contour grass barriers, contour ploughing

and green manures. Some 60 different crop species, legumi-

nous and non-leguminous, have been inter-cropped or planted

during fallow periods. These have had major impact on yields,

soil quality, levels of biological activity and water-retaining

capacity. Maize and soybean yields have increased by 66%..In Honduras, soil conservation practices and organic fertilisers

have tripled or quadrupled yields.

Planting the mucuna bean has improved crop yields on steep, easily

eroded hillsides with depleted soils in Honduras [137]. Farmers first

plant mucuna, which produces vigorous growth that suppresses

weeds. When the beans are cut down, maize is planted in the resulting

mulch. Subsequently, beans and maize are grown together. Very quick-ly,

as the soil improves, yields are doubled, even tripled (see "Better

Soils"). The reason - mucuna produces lots of organic material, creat-ing

rich, friable soils. It also produces its own fertiliser, fixing atmos-pheric

nitrogen (N) and storing it in the ground for other plants.

This simple technology has also been adopted in Nicaragua,

where more than 1 000 peasants recovered degraded land in the San

Juan watershed in just one year. These farmers have decreased the

use of chemical fertilisers from 1 900 to 400 kilograms per hectare

while increasing yields from 700 to 2 000 kilograms per hectare. Their

production costs are about 22% lower than those for farmers using

chemical fertilisers and monocultures [135].

Phosphorus (P) is the most important nutrient (after N) that is

most frequently deficient in soils of tropical Africa. Unlike N, P cannot

get into the soil by biological fixation. Therefore, the availability of P

from organic and inorganic sources is essential to maximise and sus-tain

high crop yield potential. Studies in western Kenya compared the

impact of organic and inorganic fertilisers [138]. The scientists con-cluded

that reasonable maize yields could be achieved in smallholder

systems if adequate amounts of high quality organic materials were

used as P sources.

Comparisons in industrialised countries Organic farming also compares favourably against conventional mono-culture

in industrialised countries. A review of scientifically replicated

research results from seven different US universities and data from two

research centres over 10 years shows that yields from organic systems

and conventional monoculture are comparible [139].

Corn: With 69 total cropping seasons, organic yields were 94%

of conventionally produced corn.

Soybeans: Data from five states with 55 growing seasons

showed organic yields were 94% of conventional yields.

Wheat: Two institutions with 16 cropping years showed that

59.organic wheat produced 97% of the conventional yields.

Tomatoes: 14 years of comparative research on tomatoes

showed no yield differences.

Vasilikiotis reviewed recent studies comparing the productivity of

organic practices to conventional agriculture [140], including the SAFS

and Rodale studies discussed below, and concluded that "organic farm-ing

methods can produce higher yields than conventional methods".

Furthermore, "a worldwide conversion to organic has the potential to

increase food production levels - not to mention reversing the degra-dation

of agricultural soils - and increase soil fertility and health".

Results from the first 15 years of a long-term, large scale experi-ment

carried out by the Rodale Institute showed that after a transition

period of four years, crops grown under organic systems (animal- and

legume-based) yielded as much as and sometimes better than con-ventional

crops [141]. Moreover, organic systems out-produced the

conventional system when conditions were less than optimal, for exam-ple

during drought (see "Better Soils"). Initial lower yields were attrib-uted

partly to inadequate available N, the time taken for soil microbial

activity to stabilise (soils generally contained enough total N but not yet

in a usable form) and heavier weed growth. These could be addressed

by appropriate management and given time for the system to adjust to

the shift to organic farming.

A four-year study, part of a larger, longer-term Sustainable

Agriculture Farming Systems (SAFS) project at University of California,

Davis, compared conventional and alternative farming systems for

tomatoes [142]. Results indicated that organic and low-input production

gave comparable yields to conventional systems. N availability was the

most important yield-limiting factor in organic systems, but could be

addressed by appropriate management. Additional N, when associated

with high carbon inputs, built up soil organic matter, enhancing long-term

fertility. Eventually, soil organic matter levels stabilised, requiring

less N input.

Results from the first eight years of the SAFS project showed that

the organic and low-input systems had yields comparable to the con-ventional

systems in all crops tested - tomato, safflower, corn and bean

- and, in some instances, the yields were higher than conventional sys-tems

[143]. Tomato yields in the organic system were lower in the first

three years, but then caught up with the conventional system, overtak-ing

it in the last year of the experiment (80 t/ha compared to 68 t/ha in

60.1996). Both organic and low-input systems increased soil organic car-bon

content and stored nutrients, both critical for long-term soil fertility.

As soil organic matter levels stabilised during the last two years of the

experiment, resulting in more N availability, higher yields of organic

crops were observed. The organic systems were found to be more prof-itable

in both corn and tomato, mainly due to higher price premiums.

Another experiment compared organic and conventional potatoes

and sweet corn over three years [144]. No differences in yield and vita-min

C content of potatoes were found. While one variety of conven-tional

corn out-produced the organic, there was no difference between

conventional and organic in the yield of another variety, or in vitamin C

or E contents of corn kernels. The results suggested that long-term

application of composts produces higher soil fertility and comparable

plant growth.

61.Sixteen

Better Soils

Soil conservation

Most sustainable agricultural practices reduce soil erosion and improve

soil physical structure, organic matter content, water-holding capacity

and nutrient balances. Soil fertility is maintained on existing lands and

restored on degraded lands.

A powerful example is that of farmers along the Sahara's edge, in

Nigeria, Niger, Senegal, Burkina Faso and Kenya, farming productive-ly

without destroying soils, even in dryland areas. Integrated farming,

mixed cropping and traditional soil and water conservation methods are

increasing per capita food production several fold [145, 146].

Sustainable agricultural approaches help conserve and improve

the farmers' most precious resource - the topsoil. To counter the prob-lems

of hardening, nutrient loss and erosion, organic farmers in the

South are using trees, shrubs and legumes to stabilise and feed soil,

dung and compost to provide nutrients, and terracing or check dams to

prevent erosion and conserve groundwater [131].

Restoring soil fertility

Planting mucuna beans in Latin America has restored soil fertility on

depleted soils [137]. Mucuna produces 100 tonnes of organic material

per hectare, creating rich, friable soils in a few years. It produces its

own fertiliser, fixing atmospheric N and storing it in the ground for use

by other plants. As the soil improves, yields are doubled, even tripled.

One of the longest running agricultural trials on record (more than

150 years) is the Broadbalk experiment at Rothamsted Experimental

Station. The trials compare a manure-based fertiliser farming system to

a synthetic chemical fertiliser system. Wheat yields are on average

slightly higher in organically fertilised plots than in plots receiving chem-ical

fertilisers. More importantly, soil fertility, measured as soil organic

matter and nitrogen levels, increased by 120% over 150 years in the

organic plots, compared with only a 20% increase in chemically fer-tilised

plots [147].

62.Another study compared ecological characteristics and productiv-ity

of 20 commercial farms in California [148]. Tomato yields were quite

similar in organic and conventional farms. Insect pest damage was also

comparable. Significant differences were found in soil health indicators

such as N mineralisation potential and microbial abundance and diver-sity,

which were higher in the organic farms. N mineralisation potential

was three times greater in organic compared to conventional fields.

The organic fields also had 28% more organic carbon. The increased

soil health resulted in considerably lower disease incidence. Severity of

the most prevalent disease in the study, tomato corky root disease, was

significantly lower in the organic farms.

Improving soil ecology

The world's longest running experiment comparing organic and con-ventional

farming pronounced the former a success [149, 150]. The 21-

year Swiss study found that soils nourished with manure were more fer-tile

and produced more crops for a given input of nitrogen or other fer-tiliser.

The biggest bonus was improved soil quality under organic cul-tivation.

Organic soils had up to 3.2 times as much biomass and abun-dance

of earthworms, twice as many arthropods (important predators

and indicators of soil fertility) and 40% more mycorrhizal fungi colonis-ing

plant roots. Mycorrhizal fungi help roots obtain more nutrients and

water from the soil [151]. The increased diversity of microbial commu-nities

in organic soils transformed carbon from organic debris into bio-mass

at lower energy costs, building up a higher microbial biomass.

Hence a more diverse microbial community is more efficient in resource

utilisation. The enhanced soil fertility and higher biodiversity in organic

soils is thought to reduce dependency on external inputs and provide

long-term environmental benefits.

Field experiments conducted at three organic and three conven-tional

vegetable farms in 1996-1997 examined the effects of synthetic

fertilisers and alternative soil amendments, including compost [152].

Propagule densities of Trichoderma species (beneficial soil fungi that

are biological control agents of plant-pathogenic fungi) and ther-mophilic

micro-organisms (a major constituent of which was

Actinomycetes, which suppresses Phytophthora) were greater in

organic soils. In contrast, densities of Phytophthora and Pythium (both

plant pathogens) were lower in organic soils. While the study recorded

increased enteric bacteria in organic soils, the scientists stressed that

63.this wasn't a problem, as survival rates in soil are minimal. (Critics of

organic farming disingenuously point to the possible health effects of

using manure. But untreated manure is not allowed in certified organic

agriculture, and treated manure (known widely as compost) is safe -this

is what is used in organic farming. Unlike conventional regimes

(where untreated manure might be used), organic certification bodies

inspect farms to ensure standards are met [153].)

Few significant differences in yields were observed between soils

with alternative amendments and those with synthetic fertilisers,

regardless of production system. In 1997, when all growers planted

tomatoes, the yields were higher on farms with a history of organic pro-duction,

regardless of soil amendment type, due to the benefits of long-term

organic amendments. Mineral concentrations were higher in

organic soils, and soil quality in conventional farms was significantly

improved by organic fertiliser. The researchers concluded, "the argu-ment

[of critics] that organic farming is equivalent to low yield farming

is not supported by our data" (p.158).

Overall improved soil quality, averting crop failure during

drought

The 15-year study carried out by the Rodale Institute compared three

maize/soybean agroecosystems [141, 154, 155]. One was a conven-tional

system using mineral N fertiliser and pesticides. The other two

systems were managed organically. One was manure-based, where

grasses and legumes, grown as part of a crop rotation, were fed to cat-tle.

The manure provided N for maize production. The other system did

not have livestock but leguminous cover crops were incorporated into

soil as a source of N.

Organic techniques were found to significantly improve soil quali-ty,

as measured by structure, total soil organic matter (a measure of soil

fertility) and biological activity [141]. The improved soil structure creat-ed

a better root-zone environment for growing plants and allowed the

soil to better absorb and retain moisture. Apart from the benefit during

low-rainfall periods, it reduced the potential for erosion in severe

storms. Organic soils showed a higher level of microbial activity and a

greater diversity of micro-organisms. Such long-term changes in the

soil community could promote plant health and might positively affect

the way nutrients such as carbon and nitrogen are made available to

plants and cycled in the soil. Amazingly, 10-year-average maize yields

64.differed by less than 1% among the three systems, which were nearly

equally profitable [154, 155]. The two organic systems showed increas-ing

levels of available N, while N levels declined in the conventional

system. This indicates that the organic systems are more sustainable,

in terms of productivity, over the long term [141].

The soybean production systems were also highly productive,

achieving 40 bushels/acre. In 1999, during one of the worst droughts

on record, yields of organic soybeans were 30 bushels/acre, compared

to only 16 bushels/acre from conventionally grown soybeans. Not only

did organic practices encourage the soil to hold moisture more effi-ciently

than conventionally managed soil, the higher organic matter

content also made organic soil less compact so that roots could pene-trate

more deeply to find moisture. The results highlighted the benefits

to soil quality organic farming brings, and its potential to avert crop fail-ures.

"Our trials show that improving the quality of the soil through

organic practices can mean the difference between a harvest or hard-ship

in times of drought", said Jeff Moyer, Farm Manager at Rodale

Institute [156].

65.Seventeen

Cleaner Environment

Less chemical input, less leaching and run-off

Sustainable agriculture systems that use no, or little, chemical pesti-cides

or herbicides are clearly a benefit to the environment (see next

section). Conventional farming systems are moreover often associated

with problems such as nitrate leaching and groundwater pollution.

Application of phosphorus (P) fertilisers in excess of plant needs results

in accumulation of available P in topsoils, and increased losses to sur-face

water.

Water eutrophication is one of the starkest results of N and P pol-lution.

The high nutrient concentrations stimulate algal blooms, which

block sunlight, causing aquatic vegetation to die and in the process

destroying valuable habitat, food and shelter for aquatic life. When the

algae die and decompose, oxygen is used up, to the detriment of

aquatic life.

Four farming systems - organic, low-input, conventional four-year

rotation and conventional two-year rotation - were evaluated for toma-toes

and corn from 1994 to 1998 in California's Sacramento Valley

[157]. The organic and low-input systems showed 112% and 36%

greater potentially mineralisable N pools than the conventional sys-tems,

respectively. However, as they used cover-crops, there was a

slower, more continuous release of mineral N throughout the growing

season. In contrast, conventional systems supplied mineral N in inter-vals

from synthetic fertilisers, and N mineralisation rates were 100%

greater than in the organic and 28% greater than in the low-input sys-tem.

This implied a greater likelihood of N leaching and associated pol-lution

problems in conventional systems. Average tomato and corn

yields for the five-year period were not significantly different among the

farming systems. The researchers concluded that the lower potential

risk of N leaching from lower N mineralisation rates in the organic and

low-input farming systems appear to improve agricultural sustainability

and environmental quality while maintaining similar crop yields to con-ventional

systems.

The 21-year Swiss study [149, 150] also assessed the extent to

66.which organic farming practices would affect the accumulation of total

and available phosphorus (P) in soil, compared to conventional prac-tices

[158]. Soil samples were taken from a non-fertilised control, two

conventionally cultivated treatments and two organically cultivated

treatments. Average annual P budgets of both organic farming systems

were negative for each single rotation period and for the 21 years of

field experimentation. This indicated that P removal by harvested prod-ucts

exceeded the P input by fertilisers. The conventionally cultivated

soil, receiving mineral fertilisers and farmyard manure, showed a posi-tive

budget over all three rotations. Furthermore, the inorganic P avail-ability

in the topsoil decreased markedly in all treatments during the

field trial except in the conventional treatment. Thus the potential for P

pollution from organic systems was reduced.

The 15-year trials carried out by the Rodale Institute showed that

the conventional system had greater environmental impacts - 60%

more nitrate leached into groundwater over a five-year period than in

the organic systems [154, 155]. Soils in the conventional system were

also relatively high in water-soluble carbon, hence vulnerable to leach-ing

out. The better water infiltration rates of the organic systems made

them less prone to erosion and less likely to contribute to water pollu-tion

from surface runoff.

67.Eighteen

Reduced Pesticides & No Increase in

Pests

Less pesticides

Organic farming prohibits routine pesticide application. According to the

Soil Association, in the UK, about 430 synthetic pesticide active ingre-dients

are allowed in non-organic farming, compared to seven in organ-ic

farming. The pesticides used in organic farming may only be used as

the last resort for pest control when other methods fail. They are either

natural or simple chemicals that degrade rapidly. Three of these require

further authorisation for use.

Many sustainable agriculture projects report large reductions in

pesticide use after adopting integrated pest management. In Vietnam,

farmers have cut the number of sprays from 3.4 to 1.0 per season, in

Sri Lanka from 2.9 to 0.5 per season, and in Indonesia from 2.9 to 1.1

per season. Overall, in South-east Asia, 100 000 small rice farmers

involved in integrated pest management substantially increased yields

while eliminating pesticides [130].

Pest control without pesticides, no crop losses

Because organic procedures exclude synthetic pesticides, critics claim

that losses due to pests would rise. However, research on Californian

tomato production contradicted this claim [159]. There was no signifi-cant

difference in levels of pest damage in 18 commercial farms, half of

which were certified organic systems and half, conventional operations.

Arthropod biodiversity was on average one-third greater in organic

farms than in conventional farms. There was no significant difference

between the two in herbivore (pests) abundance. However, the natural

enemies of pests were more abundant in organic farms, with greater

species richness of all functional groups (herbivores, predators, para-sitoids).

Thus, any particular pest species in organic farms would be

associated with a greater variety of herbivores (i.e. would be diluted)

and subject to control by a wider variety and greater abundance of

68.potential parasitoids and predators.

At the same time, research shows that pest control is achievable

without pesticides, actually reversing crop losses. In East Africa, maize

and sorghum face two major pests - stem borer and Striga, a parasitic

plant. Field margins are planted with 'trap crops' that attract stem borer,

such as Napier grass and Sudan grass. Napier grass is a local weed

whose odour attracts stem borer. Pests are lured away from the crop

into a trap - the grass produces a sticky substance that kills stem borer

larvae [160]. The crops are inter-planted with molasses grass

(Desmodium uncinatum) and two legumes: silverleaf and greenleaf.

The legumes bind N, enriching the soil. Desmodium also repels stem

borers and Striga.

In Bangladesh, a project began in 1995 to promote non-chemical

means of pest control in rice, that relies on natural enemies and on the

ability of the rice plant to compensate for insect damage. There have

been no negative impacts on yields [161]. On the contrary, farmers

using no insecticide consistently enjoy higher yields than those using

insecticide. As project participants also modify other practices besides

foregoing insecticides, it cannot be said that the yield increase is due

entirely to the absence of insecticides. It does show, however, that

insecticides are not needed to obtain yield increases. Project partici-pants

enjoy higher net returns than insecticide users: the 1998 average

net return for participants was Tk5,373 (US$107) per farmer per sea-son

compared to Tk3,443 (US$69) for insecticide users.

Other benefits of avoiding pesticides

Besides the obvious benefit of not using harmful pesticides, Korean

researchers have reported that avoiding pesticides in paddy fields

encourages the muddy loach fish, which effectively control the mosqui-toes

that spread malaria and Japanese encephalitis [162]. Fields in

which no insecticides were used had a richer variety of insect life.

However, the fish are voracious predators of the mosquito larvae.

In Japan, an innovative organic farmer has pioneered a rice grow-ing

system that turns weeds and pests into resources for raising ducks

[163]. The ducks eat insect pests and the golden snail that attack rice

plants, and also eat the seeds and seedlings of weeds. By using their

feet to dig up the weed seedlings, the ducks aerate the water and pro-vide

mechanical stimulation to make the rice stalks strong and fertile.

This practice has been adopted by about 10 000 farmers in Japan, and

69.by farmers in South Korea, Vietnam, the Philippines, Laos, Cambodia,

Thailand and Malaysia. Many farmers increased their yield 20 to 50%

or more in the first year. One farmer in Laos increased his income

three-fold. Systems such as these, which are characteristic of sustain-able

agricultural approaches, make use of the complex interactions of

different species, and show how important the relationship between

biodiversity and agriculture is (see next section).

The health benefits of avoiding pesticides are discussed briefly in

"Organics for Health".

70.Nineteen

Supporting Biodiversity & Using

Diversity

Agricultural biodiversity crucial for food security

Maintaining agricultural biodiversity is vital to long-term food security.

Pimbert reviewed the multiple functions of agricultural biodiversity and

its importance for rural livelihoods [164]. Agricultural biodiversity con-tributes

to food and livelihood security, efficient production, environ-mental

sustainability and rural development; it regenerates local food

systems and rural economies. Rural people have dynamic and complex

livelihoods, which usually rely on a diversity of plant and animal

species, both wild and domesticated. Diversity within species (i.e. farm-ers'

varieties or landraces) is also remarkable among the species

domesticated for crop and livestock production, and results from rural

people's innovation. Such agricultural diversity is vital insurance

against crop and livestock disease outbreaks, and improves the long-term

resilience of rural livelihoods to adverse trends or shocks.

Agricultural biodiversity is increasingly threatened by the adoption of

high-yielding, uniform cultivars and varieties in 'modern' monoculture.

The proceedings of a 2002 FAO meeting on 'Biodiversity and the

Ecosystem Approach in Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries' highlighted

the inter-connectedness of biodiversity and agriculture [165]. It gave

specific examples of how farmers' innovations enhance biodiversity,

and the importance of biodiversity for agriculture. One paper reviewed

16 case studies from 10 countries in Asia, Latin America, Europe and

Africa, showing how organic farming increases the diversity of genetic

resources for food and agriculture [166]. In all cases, there is a close

relationship between organic systems and the maintenance of biodi-versity,

and improvement in the farmers' socio-economic conditions.

Case studies of a community-based organic farming system in

Bangladesh, the ladang cultivation of organic spices in Indonesia and

organic coffee production in Mexico show how traditional and commu-nity-

based management can rehabilitate abandoned and degraded

agroecosystems. These polyculture systems are characterised by high-71.ly diversified ecosystems and agricultural biodiversity, which provide

not only food, but also further community services. Case studies of

organic cocoa farming in Mexico and organic, naturally pigmented cot-ton

in Peru are examples of successful organic agriculture that have

contributed to in situ conservation and sustainable use in centres of

diversity, while providing economic benefits for local communities.

Traditional and under-utilised species and varieties in Peru (gluten-free

quinoa), Italy (Saraceno grain, Zolfino bean, spelt wheat) and

Indonesia (local varieties of rice) have been rescued from extinction,

thanks to organic agriculture. Four case studies, from Germany, Italy,

South Africa and Brazil, illustrate how organic farming has restored

many traditional varieties and breeds that are better adapted to local

ecological conditions and are resistant to disease. As the authors con-clude,

organic agriculture contributes to in situ conservation, restoration

and maintenance of agricultural biodiversity.

Conserving and supporting biodiversity

Sustainable agriculture plays a further important role in conserving nat-ural

biodiversity. Organic farms often exhibit greater natural biodiversi-ty

than conventional farms, with more trees, a wider diversity of crops

and many different natural predators, which control pests and help pre-vent

disease [131].

Research carried out in Colombia and Mexico found 90% fewer

bird species in sun-grown coffee plantations as opposed to shade-grown

organic coffee, which mimics the forests' natural habitat [167].

Shade cultivation is recommended by organic standards as it

enhances soil fertility, controls pests and diseases and expands crop

production options. Another study by the British Trust for Ornithology

found significantly higher breeding densities of skylark (an endangered

species) on organic farms, compared to conventional farms. Floral

diversity, which has also been threatened by the increasing use of her-bicides

in agricultural production, stands to benefit from organic sys-tems

that do not allow the use of chemical herbicides. Studies in

Greece and England show that floral diversity and abundance is indeed

higher in organic than in conventional systems. Other studies show

increased invertebrate diversity and abundance in organic systems.

A report from the Soil Association [168] comprehensively

reviewed the findings of nine studies (seven from the UK, two from

Denmark), and summarised the key findings of fourteen additional

72.73

studies, on the biodiversity supported by organic farming. The report

concluded that organic farming in the lowlands supports a much high-er

level of biodiversity (both abundance and diversity of species) than

conventional farming systems, including species that have significantly

declined. This was particularly true for wild plants in arable fields; birds

and breeding skylarks; invertebrates including arthropods that com-prise

bird food; non-pest butterflies; and spiders. Organic farms also

showed significant decrease in pest aphids and no change in pest but-terflies.

Habitat quality was more favourable on organic farms, both in

terms of field boundaries and crop habitats. Many beneficial practices

were identified with organic agriculture, such as crop rotations with

grass leys, mixed spring and autumn sowing, more permanent pasture,

no application of herbicides or synthetic pesticides, and use of green

manure. These practices can reverse the trends in the decline of biodi-versity

associated with conventional farming. Generally, the improve-ments

in biodiversity were found across the cropped areas as well as

at the field margins. The report also suggested that major benefits are

likely in the uplands.

The reduced or non-use of agrochemicals in organic and sustain-able

farming will also allow wild plant species to flourish, among which

are an increasing number of herbs used in traditional medicines. The

World Health Organisation estimates that 75-80% of the world's popu-lation

use plant medicines either in part or entirely for health care.

Some of these wild plant species are facing extinction, and concerted

effort is needed for their local conservation, while ensuring that har-vesting

from the wild is sustainable and continues to contribute to local

people's livelihood [169]. Wild plants and animals are also part of an

important repertoire of food and medicines for many farming communi-ties

[164].

Diversity increases agricultural productivity

Biodiversity is an important and integral part of sustainable agricultural

approaches. Each species in an agroecosystem is part of a web of eco-logical

relationships connected by flows of energy and materials. In this

sense, the different components of agrobiodiversity are multifunctional,

and contribute to the resilience of production systems while providing

environmental services, although some species may play key driving

roles [164]. The environmental services provided by agricultural biodi-versity

include soil organic matter decomposition, nutrient cycling,.biomass production and yield efficiency, soil and water conservation,

pest control, pollination and dispersal, biodiversity conservation, cli-mate

functions, water cycling, and influence on landscape structure.

Empirical evidence from a study conducted since 1994 shows that

biodiverse ecosystems are two to three times more productive than

monocultures [170, 171]. In experimental plots, both aboveground and

total biomass increased significantly with species number. The high

diversity plots were fairly immune to the invasion and growth of weeds,

but this was not so for monocultures and low diversity plots. Thus, bio-diverse

systems are more productive, and less prone to weeds as well!

Proving with stunning results that planting a diversity of crops is

beneficial (compared with monocultures), thousands of Chinese rice

farmers have doubled yields and nearly eliminated its most devastating

disease without using chemicals or spending more [172, 173].

Scientists worked together with farmers in Yunnan, who implemented a

simple practice that radically restricted the rice blast fungus that

destroys millions of tons of rice and costs farmers several billion dollars

in losses each year. Instead of planting large stands of a single type of

rice, as is typical, farmers planted a mixture of two varieties: a standard

hybrid rice that does not usually succumb to rice blast and a much more

valuable glutinous or 'sticky' rice known to be very susceptible. The

genetically diverse rice crops were planted in all the rice fields in five

townships in 1998 (812 hectares), and ten townships in 1999 (3 342

hectares).

Disease-susceptible varieties planted with resistant varieties had

89% greater yield, and blast was 94% less severe than when grown in

monoculture. Both glutinous and hybrid rice showed decreased infec-tion.

The hypothesis is fairly clear for glutinous rice. If a variety is sus-ceptible

to a disease, the more concentrated those susceptible types

are, the more easily disease spreads. It is less likely to spread when

susceptible plants are grown among plants resistant to the disease (i.e.

a dilution effect occurs). The glutinous rice plants, which rise above the

shorter hybrid rice, also enjoyed sunnier, warmer and drier conditions

that discouraged fungal growth. Disease reduction in the hybrid variety

may be due to the taller glutinous rice blocking the airborne spores of

rice blast, and to greater induced resistance (due to diverse fields sup-porting

diverse pathogens with no single dominant strain). The gross

value per hectare of the mixtures was 14% greater than hybrid mono-cultures

and 40% greater than glutinous monocultures.

74.In Cuba, integrated farming systems or polycultures, such as cas-sava-

beans-maize, cassava-tomato-maize, and sweet potato-maize

have 1.45 to 2.82 times greater productivity than monocultures [135]. In

addition, legumes improve the physical and chemical characteristics of

soil and effectively break the cycle of insect-pest infestations.

Integrating vegetables into rice farming systems in Bangladesh by

planting them on dikes has not affected rice yields, despite the area lost

to dike crops [161]. Instead, the vegetables provided families with more

nutrients. The surplus was shared with neighbours, friends and rela-tives

or sold, providing an added value of 14%. Integrating fish into

flooded rice systems also caused no significant decline in rice yields,

and in some cases increased yields. Net returns from selling the fish

averaged Tk7,354 (US$147) per farmer per season, more than the

returns from rice. As with vegetables, rice-fish farmers ate fish more

frequently and donated much of it to their social networks.

Soil biodiversity also plays a crucial role in promoting sustainable

and productive agriculture, and organic practices help enhance this

[174]. Organic mulch, applied judiciously to degraded and crusted soil

surfaces in the Sahelian region of Burkina Faso, triggered termite activ-ity,

promoting the recovery and rehabilitation of degraded soils.

Termites feeding on or transporting surface-applied mulch improved

soil structure and water infiltration, enhancing nutrient release into the

soil. The growth and yield of cowpeas were far better on plots with ter-mites

than on plots without. In India, organic fertilisers and vermicul-tured

earthworms applied in trenches between tea rows increased tea

yields by 76-239%, compared to conventional inorganic fertilisation.

Profits increased accordingly.

75.Twenty

Environmental & Economic

Sustainability

Sustainable production

Research published in Nature investigated the sustainability of organ-ic,

conventional and integrated (combining both methods) apple pro-duction

systems in Washington from 1994-1999 [175, 176]. The organ-ic

system ranked first in terms of environmental and economic sustain-ability,

the integrated system second and the conventional system last.

The indicators used were soil quality, horticultural performance,

orchard profitability, environmental quality and energy efficiency.

Soil quality ratings in 1998 and 1999 for the organic and integrat-ed

systems were significantly higher than for the conventional system,

due to the addition of compost and mulch. All three systems gave com-parable

yields, with no observable differences in physiological disor-ders

or pest and disease damage. There were satisfactory levels of

nutrients for all. A consumer taste test found organic apples less tart at

harvest and sweeter than conventional apples after the apples were

stored for six months.

Organic apples were the most profitable due to price premiums

and quicker investment return. Despite initial lower receipts in the first

three years, due to the time taken to convert to certified organic farm-ing,

the price premium in the next three years averaged 50% above

conventional prices. In the long term, the organic system recovered

costs faster. The study projected that the organic system would break

even after 9 years, but that the conventional system would do so only

after 15 years, and the integrated system, after 17 years.

Environmental impact was assessed by a rating index to deter-mine

potential adverse impacts of pesticides and fruit thinners: the

higher the rating, the greater the negative impact. The rating of the con-ventional

system was 6.2 times that of the organic system. Despite

higher labour needs, the organic system expended less energy on fer-tiliser,

weed control and biological control of pests, making it the most

energy efficient.

76.Another study evaluated the financial and environmental aspects

of sustainability of organic, integrated and conventional farming sys-tems

by applying an integrated economic-environmental accounting

framework to three farms in Tuscany, Italy [177]. In terms of financial

performance, the gross margins of steady-state organic farming sys-tems

were higher than the corresponding conventional farming sys-tems'

gross margins. The organic systems performed better than the

integrated and conventional systems with respect to nitrogen losses,

pesticide risk, herbaceous plant biodiversity and most other environ-mental

indicators. The results provided evidence that organic farming

potentially improves the efficiency of many environmental indicators as

well as is remunerative. While not fully conclusive that organic farming

is more sustainable, nonetheless, the performance of organic farming

systems was better than conventional farming systems.

Environmentally sustainable

A Europe-wide study assessed environmental and resource use

impacts of organic farming, relative to conventional farming [178]. The

study showed that organic farming performs better than conventional

farming in relation to the majority of environmental indicators reviewed.

In no category did organic farming show a worse performance when

compared with conventional farming. For example, organic farming

performed better than conventional farming in terms of floral and faunal

diversity, wildlife conservation and habitat diversity. Organic farming

also conserved soil fertility and system stability better than convention-al

systems. Furthermore, the study showed that organic farming results

in lower or similar nitrate leaching rates than integrated or convention-al

agriculture, and that it doesn't pose any risk of ground and surface

water pollution from synthetic pesticides.

The FAO review [133] concluded, "As a final assessment, it can

be stated that well-managed organic agriculture leads to more

favourable conditions at all environmental levels" (italics added, p.62).

Its assessment showed that organic matter content is usually higher in

organic soils, indicating higher fertility, stability and moisture retention

capacity, which reduce the risk of erosion and desertification. Organic

soils have significantly higher biological activity and higher mass of

micro-organisms, making for more rapid nutrient recycling and

improved soil structure. The review found that organic agriculture

poses no risk of water pollution through synthetic pesticides and that

77.nitrate-leaching rates per hectare are significantly lower compared to

conventional systems. In terms of energy use, organic agriculture per-forms

better than conventional (see next section). The review estab-lished

that genetic resources, including insects and micro-organisms,

all increase when land is farmed organically, whilst wild flora and fauna

within and around organic farms are more diverse and abundant. By

offering food resources and shelter for beneficial arthropods and birds,

organic agriculture contributes to natural pest control. It also con-tributes

to the conservation and survival of pollinators.

78.Twenty-One

Ameliorating Climate Change

Energy efficient, reduced direct and indirect energy use

'Modern' agriculture has a lot to answer for in terms of contributing to

climate change, which is by far the most daunting problem that

humankind has ever encountered. It has increased emissions of nitrous

oxide and methane, potent greenhouse gasses; it is fossil fuel energy

intensive and contributes to the loss of soil carbon to the atmosphere

[179].

Sustainable agricultural practices can provide synergistic benefit

towards ameliorating climate change. The FAO believes that organic

agriculture enables ecosystems to better adjust to the effects of climate

change and has major potential for reducing agricultural greenhouse

gas emissions [133]. It concluded that, "Organic agriculture performs

better than conventional agriculture on a per hectare scale, both with

respect to direct energy consumption (fuel and oil) and indirect con-sumption

(synthetic fertilizers and pesticides)", with high efficiency of

energy use (p.61).

The Rodale Institute's trials found that energy use in the conven-tional

system was 200% higher than in either of the organic systems

[141]. Research in Finland showed that while organic farming used

more machine hours than conventional farming, total energy consump-tion

was still lowest in organic systems [180]. In conventional systems,

more than half of total energy consumed in rye production was spent

on the manufacture of pesticides.

Organic agriculture was more energy efficient than conventional

agriculture in apple production systems [175, 176]. Studies in Denmark

compared organic and conventional farming for milk and barley grain

production [181]. The total energy used per kilogram of milk produced

was lower in the organic than in the conventional dairy farm, while the

total energy used to grow a hectare of organic spring barley was 35%

lower than used to produce conventional spring barley on the same

area. However, organic yield was lower, thus energy used to produce

one kg of barley was only marginally lower for the organic than for the

conventional.

79.Carbon dioxide emissions were calculated to be 48-66% lower per

hectare in organic farming systems in Europe [133, 178], and were

attributed to the characteristics of organic agriculture, i.e., no input of

mineral N fertilisers with high energy consumption, lower use of high

energy consuming feedstuffs, lower input of mineral fertilisers (P, K)

and elimination of pesticides.

Furthermore, because of sustainable agriculture's focus on local

production, consumption and distribution, less energy is wasted on

transportation of products, particularly by air. According to a study car-ried

out in 2001, greenhouse gas emissions associated with the trans-port

of food from a local farm to a farmer's market were 650 times lower

than emissions associated with the average food sold in supermarkets

[cited in 179].

Greater carbon sequestration

Soils are an important sink for atmospheric CO2 , but this sink has been

increasingly depleted by conventional agricultural land use.

Sustainable agriculture approaches, however, help to counteract cli-mate

change by restoring soil organic matter content (see "Better

Soils"), as these increase carbon fixation below ground. Organic mat-ter

is restored by the addition of manures, compost, mulches and cover

crops.

Pretty and Hine suggest that the 208 projects they assessed accu-mulated

some 55.1 million tonnes of carbon [130]. The SAFS Project

found that organic carbon content of the soil increased in both organic

and low-input systems [143], while the study of 20 commercial farms in

California found that organic fields had 28% more organic carbon [148].

This was also true in the 15-year study by the Rodale Institute, where

soil carbon levels increased in the two organic systems, but not in the

conventional system [141]. The researchers concluded that organic

systems showed significant ability to absorb and retain carbon, raising

the possibility that sustainable agriculture practices can help reduce the

impact of global warming.

Less nitrous dioxide emissions

The FAO also estimated that organic agriculture is likely to emit less

nitrous dioxide (N2 O) [133], another important greenhouse gas and

also a cause of stratospheric ozone depletion. This is due to lower N

80.81

inputs; less N from organic manure due to lower livestock densities;

higher C/N ratios of applied organic manure and less available mineral

N in the soil as a source of denitrification; and efficient uptake of mobile

N in soils due to cover crops..Twenty-Two

Efficient, Profitable Production

Productivity enhanced

Any yield decrease in organic agriculture is more than made up for by

its ecological and efficiency gains, and lower costs, making it a prof-itable

venture. The Swiss study found that input of fertiliser and energy

was reduced by 34-53% and pesticide input by 97%, whereas mean

crop yield was only 20% lower over the 21 years, indicating efficient

production and resource use [149, 150]. The organic approach was

commercially viable in the long-term, producing more food per unit of

energy or resources.

Data show that smaller farms produce far more per unit area than

larger farms (which tend to be monocultures characteristic of conven-tional

farming) [136]. Though the yield per unit area of one crop may be

lower on a small farm than on a large monoculture, the total output per

unit area, often composed of more than a dozen crops and various ani-mal

products, can be far higher. Small farms are also more efficient

than large ones in terms of land use and 'total factor productivity', an

averaging of the efficiency of use of all the different factors that go into

production, including land, labour, inputs, capital, etc.

Studies in Bolivia show that though yields are greater in chemi-cally

fertilised and machinery-prepared potato fields, energy costs are

higher and net economic benefits lower, than where native legumes

have been used as rotational crops [135]. Surveys indicate that farm-ers

prefer the latter alternative system because it optimises the use of

scarce resources, labour and available capital, and is accessible to

even poor producers.

Lower costs, higher profits

Two trials in Minnesota evaluated a two-year corn-soybean rotation and

a four-year corn-soybean-oat/alfalfa-alfalfa crop rotation under four

management strategies: zero, low, high and organic inputs [182].

Averaged across a seven-year time frame from 1993-1999, corn and

soybean yields in the four-year organic strategy were 91 and 93%, and

81 and 84%, respectively, of the two-year high input strategy. However,

82.oat yields were similar with either the four-year organic or high input

strategies. Alfalfa yields in the four-year organic strategy were 92% that

of the four-year high input strategy in one trial, and in the second trial,

yields were the same. Despite the slight reduction in corn and soybean

yields, the organic strategy had lower production costs than the high

input strategy. Consequently, net returns, without considering organic

price premiums, for the two strategies were equivalent. The scientists

suggested that organic production systems could be competitive with

conventional ones.

A comprehensive review of the many comparison studies of grain

and soybean production conducted by six US Midwestern universities

since 1978 found that in all these studies organic production was equiv-alent

to, and in many cases better than, conventional [183]. Organic

systems had higher yields than conventional systems that featured

continuous crop production (i.e. no crop rotations), and equal or lower

yields in conventional systems that included crop rotations. In drier cli-mates,

organic systems had higher yields, as they were more drought-hardy

than conventional systems. The organic cropping systems were

always more profitable than the most common conventional systems if

organic price premiums were factored in. When the higher premiums

were not factored in, the organic systems were still more productive

and profitable in half the studies. This was attributed to lower produc-tion

costs and the ability of organic systems to out-perform the con-ventional

in drier areas, or during drier periods. The author concluded,

"organic production systems are competitive with the most common

conventional production systems", and suggested that, "if farmers

obtain current market premiums for organic grains and soybeans, their

organic production generally delivers higher profits than non-organic

grain and soybean production" (p.2).

The 15-year results from the Rodale Institute showed that after a

transition period with lower yields, the organic systems were competi-tive

financially with the conventional system [141]. While the costs of

the transition are likely to affect a farm's overall financial picture for

some years, projected profits ranged from slightly below to substantial-ly

above those of the conventional system, even though economic

analyses did not assume any organic price premium. The higher prof-its

for the organic farms came largely from higher corn yields, which

nearly doubled after the transition period. When prices or yields were

low, organic farms suffered less than the conventional and had fewer

83.income fluctuations, as they had a diversity of crops other than corn to

sell. Expenses on the organic farms were significantly lower than on the

conventional - the latter spent 95% more on fertilisers and pesticides.

Overall production costs on the organic farms were 26% lower.

84.Twenty-Three

Improved Food Security & Benefits to

Local Communities

Increased local food production

Despite adequate global food production, many still go hungry because

increased food supply does not automatically mean increased food

security. What's important is who produces the food, who has access

to the technology and knowledge to produce it, and who has the pur-chasing

power to acquire it [130]. Poor farmers cannot afford expensive

'modern' technologies that theoretically raise yields.

Many farmers show 'lagging productivity', not because they lack

'miracle'seeds that contain their own insecticide or tolerate massive

doses of herbicide, but because they have been displaced onto mar-ginal,

rain-fed lands, and face structures and macroeconomic policies

that have built on historical inequalities and that are increasingly inimi-cal

to food production by small farmers [184]. As such, their agriculture

is best characterised as 'complex, diverse and risk prone' [185], and

they have tailored agricultural technologies to their variable but unique

circumstances, in terms of local climate, topography, soils, biodiversity,

cropping systems, resources, etc. It is these farmers, already risk-prone,

who stand to be harmed most by the risks of GM crops [184].

Sustainable agricultural approaches must thus allow farmers to

improve local food production with low-cost, readily available technolo-gies

and inputs, without causing environmental damage. This was

indeed the case, as reviewed by Pretty and Hine [130]. Most sustain-able

agriculture projects and initiatives reported significant increases in

household food production - some as yield improvements, some as

increases in cropping intensity or diversity of produce.

The evidence showed:

Average food production per household increased by 1.71

tonnes per year (up 73%) for 4.42 million farmers on 3.58

million hectares.

85.Increase in food production was 17 tonnes per year (an

increase of 150%) for 146 000 farmers on 542 000 hectares

cultivating roots (potato, sweet potato and cassava).

Total production increased by 150 tonnes per household (an

increase of 46%) for the larger farms in Latin America (average

size 90 hectares).

The review found that as food supply increased, domestic con-sumption

also increased, with direct health benefits, particularly for

women and children. Furthermore, 88% of the 208 projects made bet-ter

use of locally-available natural resources, and 92% improved

human capital through learning programmes. In more than half the

projects, people worked together.

Learning from farmers

Sustainable agricultural approaches recognise the value of traditional

and indigenous knowledge, and of farmers' experience and innovation.

The importance and value of learning from farmers, and of farmer-led

participatory agricultural research, are well established in concepts

such as 'farmer first' [185, 186].

Case studies and experiences of successful agroecological inno-vations

from Africa, Latin America and Asia [187] provide evidence that

low-external-input agriculture using agroecological practices could

make an important contribution to feeding the world over the next 30 to

50 years. Relying on mainly local resources and knowledge, farmers

are able to increase yields substantially, sometimes doubling or tripling

outputs. To cite one example, in Mali's Sahelian Zone, soil and water

conservation practices and agroforestry have increased cereal yields,

in some cases from 300 kg/ha to 1 700 kg/ha, about twice the level

needed to meet basic food needs. Emphasis has also been placed on

conserving traditional varieties of seeds and biodiversity, through

farmer-based evaluation and community or local gene banks.

The FAO review highlights the important contributions of resource

poor farmers worldwide [133]. Non-certified organic agriculture, prac-ticed

by millions of indigenous people, peasants and small family farms

make a significant contribution to regional food security: in Latin

America they account for more than 50% of the maize, beans, manioc

and potatoes produced; in Africa, most of the cereals, roots and tubers;

in Asia, most of the rice. Case studies from India, Brazil, Iran, Thailand

and Uganda show how traditional knowledge, innovation and agroeco-86.logical approaches have brought numerous benefits: increased pro-ductivity,

better environmental health and soil fertility, improved biodi-versity,

economic benefits, food security, enhanced social relations

within communities, and revival of traditional, sustainable agricultural

practices.

Farmers in Ethiopia are taking steps to ensure their food security

by relying on their knowledge [188]. In Ejere, farmers have reclaimed

their own varieties of local wheat, teff (an Ethiopian staple cereal) and

barley, after so-called modern high-yielding varieties actually resulted

in lower yields and other problems. In the Butajira area, farmers are

demonstrating that it is possible to farm intensively and sustainably to

provide enough food to meet population needs. They do this by using

indigenous crops selected for resistance to diseases, drought tolerance

and many other desirable features, by intercropping and by integrating

livestock management. In Worabe, farmers are maintaining a complex,

sustainable and indigenous agricultural system that ensures food secu-rity.

The system is based on enset, a very drought resistant, multiple-use

indigenous crop.

Better incomes, increased food security

Evidence from hundreds of grassroots development projects shows

that increasing agricultural productivity with agroecological practices

not only increases food supplies, but also increases incomes, thus

reducing poverty, increasing food access, reducing malnutrition and

improving the livelihoods of the poor [189]. Agroecological systems

lead to more stable levels of total production per unit area than high-input

systems; they give more economically favorable rates of return,

provide a return to labour and other inputs for a livelihood acceptable

to small farmers and their families. They also ensure soil protection and

conservation, and enhance agrobiodiversity [190].

Integrated production systems and diversified farms have helped

farmers in south-central Chile reach year-round food self-sufficiency

while rebuilding the land's productive capacity [135]. Small, model farm

systems have been set up, consisting of polycultures and rotating

sequences of forage and food crops, forest and fruit trees, and incor-porating

livestock. Soil fertility improved, and no serious pest or dis-ease

problems have appeared. Fruit trees and forage crops achieved

higher than average yields, and milk and egg production far exceeded

that on conventional high-input farms. For a typical family, such sys-87.tems produced a 250% surplus of protein, 80 and 550% surpluses of

vitamin A and C, respectively, and a 330% surplus of calcium. If all the

farm output were sold at wholesale prices, a family could generate a

monthly net income 1.5 times greater than the monthly minimum wage

in Chile, while dedicating only a few hours per week to the farm. The

time freed up could be used for other income-generating activities.

Organic agriculture could improve income, profitability and return

on labour by removing or reducing the need for purchased inputs; by

diversification (often adding a new productive element) and optimising

productivity; by maintaining or improving on- and off-farm biodiversity,

allowing farmers to market non-cultivated crops, insects and animals;

and by sales in a premium market [191]. A case study from Senegal

showed that yields could be increased manifold, and were less variable

year on year, with consequent improvements in household food secu-rity.

Likewise, a participatory fair-trade coffee cooperative in Mexico,

which adopted organic practices, allowed smallholder coffee growers to

overcome soil degradation and low yields, and gain access to a

speciality market.

Generating money for the local economy

Money flows of an organic box scheme from Cusgarne Organics (UK)

showed the benefit of buying locally to the community at large [192].

The economic analysis followed the trail of the farm box scheme

income, monitoring exactly where the money was spent, how much of

it was 'local' expenditure, and then tracked that money to the next layer

of spending. It estimated that for every £1 spent at Cusgarne Organics,

£2.59 is generated for the local economy. In contrast, a study involving

supermarket giants Asda and Tesco found that for every £1 spent at a

supermarket, only £1.40 is generated for the local economy. The study

concludes, "The figures demonstrate that the net effect of spending at

Cusgarne Organics to the local economy is nearly double the effect of

the same amount spent with out-of-county and national businesses."

(p. 16).

88.89

Twenty-Four

Organics for Health

Less chemical residues

A comprehensive Soil Association review of scientific research has

shown that, on average, organic food is better for us than non-organic

food [193]. First, it is safer, as organic farming prohibits routine pesti-cide

and herbicide use, so chemical residues are rarely found. In con-trast,

non-organic food is likely to be contaminated with residues that

often occur in potentially dangerous combinations. The British Society

for Allergy, Environmental and Nutritional Medicine states on the back

cover of the report: "We have long believed the micronutrient deficien-cies

common in our patients have their roots in the mineral-depletion of

soils by intensive agriculture, and suspect that pesticide exposures are

contributing to the alarming rise in allergies and other illnesses".

The negative effects of pesticides on health include neurotoxicity,

disruption of the endocrine system, carcinogenicity and immune sys-tem

suppression (see also "Herbicide Hazards"). The impacts of dietary

exposure to pesticide residues at levels typically found in and on food

are less easy to establish, but a precautionary approach is necessary.

While there are recommended safety levels for pesticides, the UK gov-ernment's

own tests have shown that average residue levels on foods

may be under-reported.

Research has also suggested that pesticide exposure affects

male reproductive function, resulting in decreased fertilising ability of

the sperm and reduced fertilisation rates [194]. Correspondingly, mem-bers

of a Danish organic farmers' association, whose intake of organic

dairy products was at least 50% of total intake of dairy products, had

high sperm density [195]. In another study, sperm concentration was

43.1% higher among men eating organically produced food [196].

Children, in particular, may stand to benefit from organic food.

Scientists monitored preschool children in Seattle, Washington to

assess their exposure to organophosphorus (OP) pesticide from diet

[197]. The total dimethyl metabolite concentration was approximately

six times higher for children with conventional diets than those with

organic diets. The calculated dose estimates suggest that consumption.of organic fruits, vegetables and juice can reduce children's exposure

levels from above to below the US Environmental Protection Agency's

guidelines, thereby shifting exposures from a range of uncertain risk to

a range of negligible risk. The study concluded that consumption of

organic produce could be a relatively simple way for parents to reduce

children's exposure to OP pesticides.

Healthier and more nutritious

Additionally, organic food production bans the use of artificial food addi-tives

such as hydrogenated fats, phosphoric acid, aspartame and

monosodium glutamate, which have been linked to health problems as

diverse as heart disease, osteoporosis, migraines and hyperactivity

[193].

Furthermore, while plants extract a wide range of minerals from

the soil, artificial fertilisers replace only a few principal minerals. There

is a clear long-term decline in the trace mineral content of fruit and veg-etables,

and the influence of farming practices needs to be investigat-ed

more thoroughly. The Soil Association review [193] found that on

average, organic food has higher vitamin C, higher mineral levels and

higher phytonutrients - plant compounds that can fight cancer (see

later) - than conventional food.

Conventional produce also tends to contain more water than

organic produce, which contains more dry matter (on average, 20%

more) for a given total weight [193]. Thus, the higher cost of fresh

organic produce is partly offset by purchasers of conventional produce

paying for the extra weight of water and getting only 83% of the nutri-ents,

on average, available in organic produce. The higher water con-tent

also tends to dilute nutrient content.

Tests with people and animals eating organic food show it makes

a real difference to health, and alternative cancer therapies have

achieved good results relying on the exclusive consumption of organic

food. The review [193] cites recent clinical evidence from doctors and

nutritionists administering "alternative" cancer treatments, who have

observed that a completely organic diet is essential for a successful

outcome. Nutritional cancer therapies avoid pollutants and toxins as

much as possible, and promote exclusive consumption of organically

grown foods and increases in nutrient intakes. Animal feeding trials

have also demonstrated better reproductive health, better growth, and

better recovery from illness.

90.91

A literature review of 41 studies and 1 240 comparisons [198]

found statistically significant differences in the nutrient content of

organic and conventional crops. This was attributed primarily to differ-ences

in soil fertility management and its effects on soil ecology and

plant metabolism. Organic crops contained significantly more nutrients

- vitamin C, iron, magnesium and phosphorus - and significantly less

nitrates (a toxic compound) than conventional crops. There were non-significant

trends showing less protein in organic crops. However,

organic crops were of a better quality and had higher content of nutri-tionally

significant minerals, with lower amounts of some heavy metals

compared to conventional ones.

Helping fight cancer

Plant phenolics (flavonoids) are plant secondary metabolites thought to

protect plants against insect predation, bacterial and fungal infection

and photo-oxidation. These plant chemicals have been found to be

effective in preventing cancer and heart disease, and to combat age-related

neurological dysfunctions. A recent scientific paper [199, 200]

compared the total phenolic (TP) content of marionberries, strawberries

and corn grown by organic and other sustainable methods with con-ventional

agricultural practices. Statistically higher levels of TPs were

consistently found in organically and sustainably grown foods as com-pared

to those produced by conventional agriculture.

An earlier study comparing antioxidant compounds in organic and

conventional peaches and pears established that an improvement in

the antioxidant defence system of the plants occurred as a conse-quence

of organic cultivation practices [201]. This is likely to exert pro-tection

against fruit damage when grown in the absence of pesticides.

Hence organic agriculture, which eliminates the routine use of synthet-ic

pesticides and chemical fertilisers, could create conditions

favourable to the production of health-enhancing plant phenolics.

These and many other health benefits of organic foods have been

brought to the attention of the UK government [202, 203]. Among the

issues raised are the hidden costs of conventional agriculture, which

are not factored into the price. If hidden costs were taken into account,

conventionally produced food would prove more expensive than organ-ic

food. For example, avoidance of the BSE epidemic through organic

farming would have saved £4.5 billion. No animal born and raised on

an organic farm developed BSE in the UK..

92

Twenty-Five

Conclusion to Part 3

Sustainable agricultural approaches can deliver substantial increases

in food production at low cost. They can be economically, environmen-tally

and socially viable, and contribute positively to local livelihoods.

They are also better for health and the environment.

Because the true root cause of hunger is inequality amongst

nations and peoples, any method of boosting food production that

deepens inequality is bound to fail to reduce hunger. Conversely, only

technologies that have positive effects on the distribution of wealth,

income and assets can truly reduce hunger [4]. Fortunately, such tech-nologies

already exist in sustainable approaches to agriculture.

Agroecology, sustainable agriculture and organic farming work,

not just for farmers in the developed world, but especially for farmers in

developing countries. As the FAO review [133] shows, there is a good

existing base to build and scale-up efforts for both certified and non-certified

organic agriculture. The technologies and social processes for

local improvements are increasingly well-tested and established, and

already delivering benefits in terms of increased productivity. The

examples reviewed here are only a foretaste of the myriad successful

experiences of sustainable agricultural practices at the local level. They

represent countless demonstrations of talent, creativity and scientific

capability in rural communities [132].

There is thus an urgent need to concentrate effort, research, funds

and policy support on agroecology, sustainable agriculture and organic

farming, particularly strengthening production by farmers themselves

for local needs. The challenge is to scale-up and multiply the success-es,

as well as to make them equitably and broadly accessible. The

model of 'modern' agriculture, so often in the hands of a few large cor-porations,

must be challenged, as must be GM crops. Existing subsi-dies

and policy incentives for conventional chemical and GM approach-es

need to be dismantled, and brakes applied on the drain of resources

away from the alternatives [4]. We also need to guard against organic

agriculture being taken over by powerful interests, and support all kinds

of sustainable agriculture, especially that on small farms..

93

References

6. http://www.isaaa.org/ 

37. Saunders PT and Ho MW. The precautionary principle is science-.based. ISIS Report, April 2003 www.i-sis.org.uk 

41. Martineau B. First Fruit. McGraw-Hill, New York, 2001.

42. Greenpeace Business, issue 66, April/May 2002

145. Pearce F. 'Desert harvest', New Scientist, 27 October 2001, p. 44-47.

169. Burcher S. 'Herbalert to the rescue', Science in Society 2003, 18.

190. Pretty J. 1995. Regenerating agriculture. London: Earthscan. Cited in ref. 4..109

Statement of the Independent Science Panel

Launched 10 May 2003, London.

The Independent Science Panel (ISP) is a panel of scientists from

many disciplines, committed to the following.

1. Promoting science for the public good, independent of com-mercial

and other special interests, or of government control

We firmly believe that science should be accountable to civil society;

that it should be accessible to all, regardless of gender, age, race, reli-gion

or caste; and that all sectors of civil society should participate in

making decisions on all issues related to science, from scientific

research to policies regarding science and technologies.

We believe that accurate scientific information should be prompt-ly

accessible to the public in unbiased and uncensored forms.

2. Maintaining the highest standards of integrity and impartiality in science

We subscribe to the principles of honesty, openness and pluralism in

the practice of science. There should be open peer-review for pub-lished

work, and respect and protection for those whose research chal-lenges

the conventional paradigm or majority opinion. Scientific dis-agreements

must be openly and democratically debated.

We are committed to upholding the highest standards of scientific

research, and to ensuring that research funding is not skewed or dis-torted

by commercial or political imperatives.

3. Developing sciences that can help make the world sustainable,

equitable, peaceful and life-enhancing for all its inhabitants

We respect the sanctity of human life, seek to minimise harm to any liv-ing

creature, and protect the environment. We hold that science should

contribute to the physical, social and spiritual well-being of all in all soci-eties.

We are committed to an ecological perspective that takes proper

account of the complexity, diversity and interdependence of all nature.

We subscribe to the precautionary principle: when there is rea-sonable

suspicion of serious or irreversible damage, lack of scientific

consensus must not be used to postpone preventative action..

111

We reject scientific endeavours that serve aggressive military ends,

promote commercial imperialism or damage social justice.

The Genetic Modification Group of the ISP

The Genetic Modification (GM) Group of the ISP consists of scientists

working in genetics, biosciences, toxicology and medicine, and other

representatives of civil society who are concerned about the harmful

consequences of genetic modifications of plants and animals and relat-ed

technologies and their rapid commercialisation in agriculture and

medicine without due process of proper scientific assessment and of

public consultation and consent.

We find the following aspects especially regrettable and

unacceptable:

Lack of critical public information on the science and

technology of GM

Lack of public accountability in the GM science community

Lack of independent, disinterested scientific research into,

and assessment of, the hazards of GM

Partisan attitude of regulatory and other public information

bodies, which appear more intent on spreading corporate

propaganda than providing crucial information

Pervasive commercial and political conflicts of interests in

both research and development and regulation of GM

Suppression and vilification of scientists who try to convey

research information to the public that is deemed to harm

the industry

Persistent denial and dismissal of extensive scientific

evidence on the hazards of GM to health and the

environment by proponents of genetic modification and by

supposedly disinterested advisory and regulatory bodies

Continuing claims of GM benefits by the biotech corporations,

and repetitions of these claims by the scientific establishment,

in the face of extensive evidence that GM has failed both in

the field and in the laboratory.

Reluctance to recognize that the corporate funding of

academic research in GM is already in decline, and that the

biotechnology multinationals (and their shareholders).112

as well as investment consultants are now questioning the

wisdom of the 'GM enterprise'

Attacks on, and summary dismissal of, extensive evidence

pointing to the benefits of various sustainable agricultural

approaches for health and the environment, as well as for food

security and social well-being of farmers and their local

communities..

113

Independent Science Panel on GM

List of Members

Prof. Miguel Altieri

Professor of Agroecology, University of California, Berkeley, USA

Dr. Michael Antoniou

Senior Lecturer in Molecular Genetics, GKT School of Medicine,

King's College London

Dr. Susan Bardocz

Biochemist; formerly Rowett Research Institute, Scotland

Prof. David Bellamy OBE

Internationally renowned botanist, environmentalist, broadcaster,

author and campaigner; recipient of numerous awards; President and

Vice President of many conservation and environmental organizations

Dr. Elizabeth Bravo V.

Biologist, researcher and campaigner on biodiversity and GMO

issues; co-founder of Acción Ecológica; part-time lecturer at

Universidad Politécnica Salesiana, Ecuador

Prof. Joe Cummins

Professor Emeritus of Genetics, University of Western Ontario,

London, Ontario, Canada

Dr. Stanley Ewen

Consultant Histopathologist at Grampian University Hospitals Trust;

formerly Senior Lecturer in Pathology, University of Aberdeen; lead

histopathologist for the Grampian arm of the Scottish Colorectal

Cancer Screening Pilot Project

Edward Goldsmith

Recipient of the Right Livelihood and numerous awards, environmen-talist,

scholar, author and Founding Editor of The Ecologist.Dr. Brian Goodwin

Scholar in Residence, Schumacher College, England

Dr. Mae-Wan Ho

Co-founder and Director of the Institute of Science in Society; Editor

of the magazine Science in Society; Science Advisor to the Third

World Network and on the Roster of Experts for the Cartagena

Protocol on Biosafety

Prof. Malcolm Hooper

Emeritus Professor at the University of Sunderland; previously,

Professor of Medicinal Chemistry, Faculty of Pharmaceutical

Sciences, Sunderland Polytechnic; Chief Scientific Advisor to the Gulf

War Veterans

Dr. Vyvyan Howard

Medically qualified toxico-pathologist, Developmental Toxico-Pathology

Group, Department of Human Anatomy and Cell Biology,

The University of Liverpool; member of the UK Government's

Advisory Committee on Pesticides

Dr. Brian John

Geomorphologist and environmental scientist; Founder and long-time

Chairman of the West Wales Eco Centre; one of the coordinating

group of GM Free Cymru

Prof. Marijan Jošt

Professor of Plant Breeding and Seed Production, Agricultural

College Krizevci, Croatia

Lim Li Ching

Researcher, Institute of Science in Society and Third World Network,

deputy-editor of Science in Society magazine

Dr. Eva Novotny

Astronomer and campaigner on GM issues for Scientists for Global

Responsibility, SGR

114.Prof. Bob Orskov OBE

Formerly Rowett Research Institute, Aberdeen, Scotland; Director,

International Feed Resources Unit; Fellow of the Royal Society of

Edinburgh, FRSE; Fellow of the Polish Academy of Science

Dr Michel Pimbert

Agricultural ecologist and Principal Associate, International Institute

for Environment and Development

Dr. Arpad Pusztai

Private consultant; formerly Senior Research Fellow at the Rowett

Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen, Scotland

David Quist

Microbial ecologist, Ecosystem Sciences Division, Environmental

Science, Policy and Management, University of California, Berkeley,

USA

Dr. Peter Rosset

Agricultural ecologist and rural development specialist; Co-director of

the Institute for Food and Development Policy (Food First), Oakland,

California, USA

Prof. Peter Saunders

Professor of Applied Mathematics at King's College, London

Dr. Veljko Veljkovic

AIDS virologist, Center for Multidisciplinary Research and

Engineering, Institute of Nuclear Sciences VINCA, Belgrade,

Yugoslavia

Prof. Oscar B. Zamora

Professor of Agronomy, Department of Agronomy, University of the

Philippines Los Banos-College of Agriculture (UPLB-CA), College,

Laguna, The Philippines

115...

The Independent Science Panel (ISP) on GM - launched 10 May 2003 at a

public conference in London attended by the then UK environment

minister Michael Meacher and 200 other participants - consists of dozens

of prominent scientists from seven countries, spanning the disciplines of

agroecology, agronomy, biomathematics, botany, chemical medicine,

ecology, histopathology, microbial ecology, molecular genetics,

nutritional biochemistry, physiology, toxicology and virology.

As their contribution to the global GM debate, the ISP has compiled this

complete dossier of evidence on the known problems and hazards of

GM crops as well as on the manifold benefits of sustainable agriculture.

Read it to make the right choice for the future of agriculture

and food security