Shanthu Shantharam has called my article on the problems
with genetically modified seed and crop "half-baked" and "total
ignorance". My article, "Let’s
be honest about GM crops" was published by Swarajya on and Shantharam's ill-tempered rejoinder is
titled "Genetically-Modified
Crops Are The Future: Here's Why".
Swarajya and Shantharam have presented his qualifications as being those of a scientist, however his marked reluctance to confront the substance of the points I raised in "Let’s be honest about GM crops" is typical of supporters of the bio-technology industry. Such supporters do science a disservice by refusing to, or side-stepping with name-calling (Shantharam's sorry tactic with my article), the issues. Another tactic, seen in his reply, is to refer vaguely to reports from Europe or the USA and claim to the reader that these are all for GM.
This is misrepresentation, which the bio-technology and genetic engineering industry has become well versed at. While in his article he has mentioned "two gigantic reports of GM safety research funded by the EU for more than 25 years", the two reports are not named. It is possible that one of these is 'Research on GM foods', which was commissioned by the European Union (EU) and is often claimed by the bio-tech industry and GM supporters as having concluded that GM foods are safe. Not at all, because most of this research project was not designed to examine the safety of specific GM foods and that is why conclusions about their alleged safety from the report do not arise. Studies show that GM foods can be toxic, allergenic, or have unintended nutritional changes. Prof C. Vyvyan Howard, a medically qualified toxicopathologist based at the University of Ulster and a signatory to the statement, said: “A substantial number of studies suggest that GM crops and foods can be toxic or allergenic.”
Swarajya and Shantharam have presented his qualifications as being those of a scientist, however his marked reluctance to confront the substance of the points I raised in "Let’s be honest about GM crops" is typical of supporters of the bio-technology industry. Such supporters do science a disservice by refusing to, or side-stepping with name-calling (Shantharam's sorry tactic with my article), the issues. Another tactic, seen in his reply, is to refer vaguely to reports from Europe or the USA and claim to the reader that these are all for GM.
This is misrepresentation, which the bio-technology and genetic engineering industry has become well versed at. While in his article he has mentioned "two gigantic reports of GM safety research funded by the EU for more than 25 years", the two reports are not named. It is possible that one of these is 'Research on GM foods', which was commissioned by the European Union (EU) and is often claimed by the bio-tech industry and GM supporters as having concluded that GM foods are safe. Not at all, because most of this research project was not designed to examine the safety of specific GM foods and that is why conclusions about their alleged safety from the report do not arise. Studies show that GM foods can be toxic, allergenic, or have unintended nutritional changes. Prof C. Vyvyan Howard, a medically qualified toxicopathologist based at the University of Ulster and a signatory to the statement, said: “A substantial number of studies suggest that GM crops and foods can be toxic or allergenic.”
The question of the safety of GM seed and crop has been and
continues to be an issue that the Shantharams of the subject shy away from.
There is little else they can do, for being 'scientific' does unfortunately for
them mean taking full cognisance of risks and the likely compromising of human,
animal and environmental safety. Early in 2017 this was done by the Ministry of
Agrarian Development of the Government of Brazil.What makes this work
noteworthy is that every year for the last five years Brazil is the country
with the largest acreage of sown genetically modified crops after the USA. The
Ministry of Agrarian Development publication is a compilation, titled "Transgenic Crops -
hazards and uncertainties", by its scientists. The compilation has
brought together an unprecedented 750 studies on precisely the problem that
Shantharam (and others who have written about GM in Swarajya) claims does not
exist: the risks and hazards of GM seed and crop.
These 750 studies, the Brazilian scientists have said, provide "irrefutable evidence" for the lack of consensus among scientists about GM crops. Their compilation has directly called out the falsehood spread by the bio-technology industry - including the producers of GM seeds - that there is no science-based debate about the public health and environmental risks of GM seed and crop. The references presented in the Brazilian compilation correspond to studies published by scientists and independent researchers in journals.
Close on the heels of this report by the Brazilian Government, on January 24th, 2017, the UN rapporteur condemned the assertion promoted by the agrochemical industry that the intensification, high input agriculture was needed to feed the world. The report is critical of the oligopoly of the chemical industry and the powers they wield. Three powerful corporations: Monsanto and Bayer, Dow and Dupont, and Syngenta and ChemChina control almost 61% of commercial seed sales . They wield such powers that they influence policy makers, act as obstructionists, influence regulators and often contest scientific evidence of the hazards related to their products. Further they ignore all counter opinions from the scientific world - they are very quick to dismiss any research that is contradictory to their agenda – this is anything but science. To make it worse ,scientists who uncover health and environmental risks to the detriment of corporate interests may face grave threats to their reputations, and even to themselves.
These 750 studies, the Brazilian scientists have said, provide "irrefutable evidence" for the lack of consensus among scientists about GM crops. Their compilation has directly called out the falsehood spread by the bio-technology industry - including the producers of GM seeds - that there is no science-based debate about the public health and environmental risks of GM seed and crop. The references presented in the Brazilian compilation correspond to studies published by scientists and independent researchers in journals.
Close on the heels of this report by the Brazilian Government, on January 24th, 2017, the UN rapporteur condemned the assertion promoted by the agrochemical industry that the intensification, high input agriculture was needed to feed the world. The report is critical of the oligopoly of the chemical industry and the powers they wield. Three powerful corporations: Monsanto and Bayer, Dow and Dupont, and Syngenta and ChemChina control almost 61% of commercial seed sales . They wield such powers that they influence policy makers, act as obstructionists, influence regulators and often contest scientific evidence of the hazards related to their products. Further they ignore all counter opinions from the scientific world - they are very quick to dismiss any research that is contradictory to their agenda – this is anything but science. To make it worse ,scientists who uncover health and environmental risks to the detriment of corporate interests may face grave threats to their reputations, and even to themselves.
GM proponents claim that GM crops have been cultivated for
30 years and yet there is not a single instance of any harm to humans or
animals. That not a single American has suffered the ill effects of consuming
GM food is merely anecdotal. It would be good for these proponents to prove
this claim. Most GM crops go into animal feed. Since GM foods are not labelled
in the US, so there is no way of tracking their consumption and linking any
suspected ill effects back to them. As Nassim Nicholas Taleb says “Doctors most
commonly get mixed up between absence of evidence and evidence of absense”.
The other claim that genetic modification is natural and
that for millennia humans have been doing genetic modification in agriculture is
contradictory. If indeed this is true, and if this technology occurs naturally
why does a company like Monsanto claim patents worldwide? They tell patent
offices in countries where they operate that the GM process is totally
different from natural breeding and so the generation of a GM crop constitutes
a non-obvious “inventive step”, thus making the GM crop patentable. Yet, on the
other hand, it tells the public that the GM process is little different from
natural breeding and therefore GM foods are as safe as non-GM foods.
In 2014, a report by Food
& Watch, exposes in great detail misinterpretation and twisting of
research finding to back the claim on the safety of GM food. Those part of the GMO
is “safe –consensus” campaign like to refer to the Royal Society of Medicine
and the Royal Society of London as part of the scientific “consensus. However
this safe-consensus is based on quotes from individuals who are not formal
representatives of these groups. The Royal Society of London is said to be part
of the “consensus” group, when in fact the Society called for tougher
regulations before GM food is passed as safe for human consumption. There is
growing pressure that the testing standards for GM food must be improved.
"The battery of tests should be spelt out much more clearly," says
Eric Brunner at University College London and one of the authors of the report.
Some animal testing may also be required, he says. The testing regime must be
independently scrutinised, recommends the report, so that companies cannot
submit selective data about their new GM products.”
It is all of the above and more, that Professor Shanthu
Shantharam represents. His past association with Syngenta, his ties with
biotechnology industry blinds him to the fact that it is the farmer that has
been cultivating food crops since ancient times. For example, from a wild aquatic
grass, the Indian farmer over centuries, have selected and cultivated thousands
of varieties of rice - rice that can be cultivated in different agro ecological
zones – from the high hills of the Himalayas to the salt marshes of coastal
Indian, creating almost 200,000 varieties of rice, where myths are not needed
to be created to say that they are safe for human consumption.
As I write this today, the California
Court dismissed Monsanto from
seeking to bar the state from adding glyphosate, the lead ingredient in the
company's Roundup herbicide, to a list of cancer-causing chemicals.
Safe for human consumption did you say Professor Shanthu
Shantharam?
This article first appeared in Swarajya
