What you
need to know about GMOs
Joel
Achenbach June 30, 2016
The
Washington Post
While
Greenpeace and other organizations oppose genetically engineered food, more
than 100 Nobel laureates are taking a stand on the side of GMOs. Here's a look
at each side's arguments.
More than 100 Nobel laureates
have signed a letter urging Greenpeace to end its opposition to genetically
modified organisms (GMOs). The letter asks Greenpeace to cease its efforts to
block introduction of a genetically engineered strain of rice that supporters
say could reduce Vitamin-A deficiencies causing blindness and death in children
in the developing world.
"We urge Greenpeace and its
supporters to re-examine the experience of farmers and consumers worldwide with
crops and foods improved through biotechnology, recognize the findings of
authoritative scientific bodies and regulatory agencies, and abandon their
campaign against 'GMOs' in general and Golden Rice in particular," the
letter states.
The letter campaign was organized
by Richard Roberts, chief scientific officer of New England Biolabs and, with
Phillip Sharp, the winner of the 1993 Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine for
the discovery of genetic sequences known as introns. The campaign has a
website, supportprecisionagriculture.org,
that includes a running list of the signatories, and the group plans to hold a
news conference Thursday morning at the National Press Club in Washington.
“We’re scientists. We understand
the logic of science. It's easy to see what Greenpeace is doing is damaging and
is anti-science," Roberts told The Washington Post. “Greenpeace initially,
and then some of their allies, deliberately went out of their way to scare
people. It was a way for them to raise money for their cause."
Roberts said he endorses many
other activities of Greenpeace, and said he hopes the group, after reading the
letter, would "admit that this is an issue that they got wrong and focus
on the stuff that they do well."
Greenpeace has not yet responded
to requests for comment on the letter. [Update: Greenpeace responded early
Thursday -- see statement below.] It is hardly the only group that
opposes GMOs, but it has a robust global presence, and the laureates in their
letter contend that Greenpeace has led the effort to block Golden Rice.
The list of signatories had risen
to 107 names by Wednesday morning. Roberts said that, by his count, there are
296 living laureates.
Nobel laureate Randy Schekman, a
cell biologist at the University of California at Berkeley, told The Post, “I
find it surprising that groups that are very supportive of science when it
comes to global climate change, or even, for the most part, in the appreciation
of the value of vaccination in preventing human disease, yet can be so dismissive
of the general views of scientists when it comes to something as important as
the world’s agricultural future.”
The letter states:
Scientific and regulatory
agencies around the world have repeatedly and consistently found crops and
foods improved through biotechnology to be as safe as, if not safer than those
derived from any other method of production. There has never been a single
confirmed case of a negative health outcome for humans or animals from their
consumption. Their environmental impacts have been shown repeatedly to be less
damaging to the environment, and a boon to global biodiversity.
Greenpeace has spearheaded
opposition to Golden Rice, which has the potential to reduce or eliminate much
of the death and disease caused by a vitamin A deficiency (VAD), which has the
greatest impact on the poorest people in Africa and Southeast Asia.
The World Health Organization
estimates that 250 million people, suffer from VAD, including 40 percent of the
children under five in the developing world. Based on UNICEF statistics,
a total of one to two million preventable deaths occur annually as a result of
VAD, because it compromises the immune system, putting babies and children at
great risk. VAD itself is the leading cause of childhood blindness globally
affecting 250,000 - 500,000 children each year. Half die within 12 months of
losing their eyesight.
The scientific consensus is that
that gene editing in a laboratory is not more hazardous than modifications
through traditional breeding, and that engineered plants potentially have
environmental or health benefits, such as cutting down on the need for
pesticides. A report by the
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, released
in May, said there is no substantiated evidence that GMO crops have sickened
people or harmed the environment, but also cautioned that such crops are
relatively new and that it is premature to make broad generalizations, positive
or negative, about their safety.
Opponents of GMOs have said these
crops may not be safe for human or animal consumption, have not been shown to
improve crop yields, have led to excessive use of herbicides and can
potentially spread engineered genes beyond the boundaries of farms.
Greenpeace
International's website states that the release of GMOs into the
natural world is a form of "genetic pollution." The site states: "Genetic engineering enables
scientists to create plants, animals and micro-organisms by manipulating genes
in a way that does not occur naturally. These genetically modified
organisms (GMOs) can spread through nature and interbreed with natural
organisms, thereby contaminating non 'GE' environments and future generations
in an unforeseeable and uncontrollable way."
Virtually all crops and livestock
have been genetically engineered in the broadest sense; there are no wild cows,
and the cornfields of the United States reflect many centuries of plant
modification through traditional breeding. Genetically modified crops started
to become common in the mid-1990s; today, most of the
corn, soybeans and cotton in the country have been modified to
be resistant to insects or tolerant of herbicide, according to government
statistics.
Opponents of GMOs have focused a
great deal on the economic and social repercussions of the introduction of
lab-modified crops. Greenpeace has warned of the corporate domination of the
food supply, saying that small farmers will suffer. A Greenpeace spokesman
Wednesday referred a reporter to a Greenpeace publication titled "Twenty
Years of Failure: Why GM crops have failed to deliver on their promises."
This debate between mainstream
scientists and environmental activists isn't new, and there is little reason to
suspect that the letter signed by the Nobel laureates will persuade GMO
opponents to stand down.
But Columbia University's Martin
Chalfie, who shared the 2008 Nobel in chemistry for research on green
fluorescent protein, said he thinks laureates can be influential on the GMO
issue. "Is there something special
about Nobel laureates? I’m not so sure we’re any more special than other
scientists who have looked at the evidence involved, but we have considerably
more visibility because of the prize. I think that this behooves us, that when
we feel that science is not being listened to, that we speak out."
Roberts said he has worked on
previous campaigns that sought to leverage the influence of Nobel laureates. In
2012, for example, he organized a campaign to persuade Chinese authorities to
release from house arrest the human rights activist and Nobel Peace Prize
laureate Liu Xiaobo. Roberts said he decided to take on the GMO issue after
hearing from scientific colleagues their research was being impeded by anti-GMO
activism from Greenpeace and other organizations. He said he has no financial
interest in GMO research.
Update: Here is Greenpeace's
response, datelined Manila, June 30, from Wilhelmina Pelegrina, Campaigner at
Greenpeace Southeast Asia:
“Accusations that anyone is
blocking genetically engineered ‘Golden’ rice are false. ‘Golden’ rice has
failed as a solution and isn’t currently available for sale, even after more
than 20 years of research. As admitted by the International Rice Research
Institute, it has not been proven to actually address Vitamin A Deficiency. So
to be clear, we are talking about something that doesn’t even exist.
“Corporations are overhyping
‘Golden’ Rice to pave the way for global approval of other more profitable
genetically engineered crops. This costly experiment has failed to produce
results for the last 20 years and diverted attention from methods that already
work. Rather than invest in this overpriced public relations exercise, we need
to address malnutrition through a more diverse diet, equitable access to food
and eco-agriculture.”
On alternative solutions:
“The only guaranteed solution to
fix malnutrition is a diverse healthy diet. Providing people with real food
based on ecological agriculture not only addresses malnutrition, but is also a
scaleable solution to adapt to climate change. We’ve documented communities
across the Philippines that continue to express concerns about using GE golden
rice as a solution. It is irresponsible to impose GE golden rice as a quick
remedy to people on the front lines and who do not welcome it, particularly
when there are safe and effective options already available.
“Greenpeace Philippines is
already working with NGO partners and farmers in the Philippines to boost
climate resiliency (4). There’s a real chance here for governments and the
philanthropic community to support these endeavours by investing in
climate-resilient ecological agriculture and empowering farmers to access a
balanced and nutritious diet, rather than pouring money down the drain for GE
‘Golden’ rice.”
No comments:
Post a Comment