Naturally, the pesticide and biotech industry players have come out swinging with a host of dire but false predictions that food prices will rise and the sky will fall if people are allowed to know what’s in our food. The latest evidence of desperation comes from a long-time GE apologist, who now claims that labeling GE foods in the U.S. will exacerbate world hunger and poverty. Seriously?

GE’s broken promises

When I got to the end of Robert Paarlberg’s latest pro-GE article in the Wall Street Journal — where he makes the acrobatic leap from labeling GE foods in the U.S. to world hunger — I literally shook my head and said, “Really, Rob?” My tone mirrored that of my 12 year old when he says, “Really, Mom?” if I make a particularly inane or utterly ridiculous (to his mind) comment.

Paarlberg’s reasoning is pretty opaque, but it seems to go like this: if we adopt GE labeling here, then developing country governments (he hypothesizes) would follow our lead, enthusiasm for importing our GE seeds would drop, and (here’s the leap) therefore people will go hungry.

A few quick points to set the record straight:

• No one is waiting for U.S. leadership in labeling. Already 3 billion people in 64 countries have labeling, including numerous countries across Africa, Asia and Latin America. The U.S. is actually a latecomer to GE labeling.
• GE crops do not feed the world’s hungry. Instead, evidence shows us they have continually failed to deliver on industry’s promises of increasing yields, improving nutrition or enabling farmers to weather drought.
• Rather, GE crops fuel the growth engine of the pesticide industry, with virtually 100 percent of GE seeds on the market today designed to either contain an insecticide or to be used with herbicides. This has led to a massive increase in herbicide use and an epidemic of herbicide-resistant “superweeds.”

Food democracy not GE dependency

Paarlberg claims that “the world needs genetically engineered foods.” It would be more accurate to say that the world’s pesticide companies need GE products. That’s why they created them. But the drivers of, and solutions to, world hunger are rather more complex than industry advocates like to acknowledge.

The reality is that people are often hungry because they are poor and cannot — for a variety of political, social and economic reasons — afford the price of food. In addition to establishing equitable economic and trade policies, real solutions to world hunger will arise out of investing in locally appropriate ecological farming practices that integrate grassroots science and farmers’ knowledge — practices that are productive, resilient and profitable.

Indeed, the weight of scientific evidence supports a global shift towards ecological farming. Numerous UN and independent academic reports have concluded that meeting the climate, water, energy and food challenges of the 21^st century can be achieved by investing in agroecology. In contrast, the data show, GE technologies are unlikely to get us where we need to go.

Additionally, agroecological farming can double food production, save our soil, protect biodiversity, reduce dependence on fossil fuels and help farmers adapt to climate change. And organic farming and reliance on traditional seed systems are among the best options available for achieving food security across Africa.

Along with millions of others around the globe — family farmers, rural community leaders, sustainable development experts and scientists — I would argue that what the world actually needs is food democracy. We need ordinary people taking charge of our food systems, getting together to establish the rules, and develop and share creative farming practices. This will enable us to grow and distribute food sustainably, support the livelihoods and protect the health of current and future generations, and safeguard the soil, water and wildlife on which we all depend.

Unfortunately, Lynas then went on to ignore the weight of scientific evidence (more on that below). He claimed that GE crop production is good for biodiversity and necessary to feed the world, that organic farming is bad, and that “there is no reason at all why avoiding chemicals should be better for the environment.” He then quickly slammed the door shut on public debate, pronouncing “discussion over.” Many of us in the global scientific community were left shaking our heads, bemused if disappointed in Lynas’ anti-science rhetorical flourishes.

Four excellent science- and evidence-based rebuttals to Lynas have since appeared, authored by University of Michigan evolution professor, John Vandermeer; Union of Concerned Scientists’ Doug Gurian-Sherman; Dr. Brian John of UK’s Durham University; and Earth Island Journal’s Jason Mark.

Less rigorous was the response of journalists at the New York Times, New Yorker, L.A. Times, Slate and the Economist, who essentially reprinted large swaths of Lynas’ speech, congratulating him on his “courageous” about-face, without bothering to investigate the veracity of any of his claims. In so doing, they’ve demonstrated their adroit use of the copy-paste function on their keyboards, but little else.

Separating evidence from rhetoric

Lynas went wrong in several areas. First, he claims that GE crops are critical to feeding the world. There are two fundamental problems with his reasoning: a) GE crops do not increase yield and b) focusing on productivity is not actually the way to solve world hunger.

Taking the second, larger point first: people are hungry because they cannot afford to buy food. They cannot afford food because they are poor, and their poverty is related to a host of complex political, social, economic and environmental factors. It turns out that things like global trade policies, land tenure, commodity speculation, corporate concentration ratios and biofuel mandates are more direct determinants of hunger than a crop plant’s intrinsic yield.

That is why the most comprehensive global assessment of agriculture to date — the World Bank and U.N.-sponsored International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Scientific and Technology for Development (IAASTD), authored by 400 scientists and development experts from over 80 countries — highlighted the urgent need to undertake major shifts in governance, trade, finance and development policies in order to “feed the world.” This could be achieved, says the IAASTD, by rebalancing power in the food system, supporting small-scale farmers and advancing social equity.

The IAASTD — and numerous other U.N. reports — have also concluded that increasing investment in agroecological and diversified farming systems is crucial to meeting the closely interconnected climate, water, energy and food challenges of the 21^st century. According to the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, agroecological farming can double food production within 10 years, while mitigating climate change and alleviating poverty.

And on a purely practical level, one of the most cost-effective and sensible ways to address global food needs is to reduce food waste. From 30-50% of food produced globally goes to waste, according to a report out this month from the UK-based Institution of Mechanical Engineers.

In contrast, GE seeds were considered by IAASTD scientists unlikely to contribute to equitable and sustainable development or do much to reduce global hunger and poverty.

But does GE at least increase productivity?

Here too, GE seeds miss the mark. After 25 years of research, 14 years of commercialization and millions of dollars in public funding, GE has failed to deliver. GE crops neither increase yield nor provide nutritional benefits. U.S. land grant universities have even documented “yield drag” with losses of 5-10% in GE soy.

GE seeds sell pesticides

Lynas dismisses the notion that GE crops increase pesticide use. The reality is that herbicide-resistant GE seeds have driven enormous increases in pesticide applications over the past 16 years.

Virtually 100% of GE crops planted worldwide have been engineered to be used with herbicides or contain insecticidal toxins, or both, according to industry data. As superweeds and superbugs evolve resistance to GE crops and their associated pesticides, farmers resort to more chemical use, not less. This is happening in the U.S., India, China and South Africa.

The latest analysis of data out of Washington State University shows that GE crops have driven up overall pesticide use across the country, contributing to a 527 million pound increase in herbicide use between 1996 and 2011. And last year alone, GE crops used 20 percent more pesticides on average than non-GE crops.

This is the pesticide industry’s dirty little secret: GE seeds are engineered to be the growth engine of the world’s biggest pesticide companies, not the green solution to the world’s food needs.

Will this change? Not anytime soon. Most of the “new generation” GE crops developed by Dow and Monsanto — and currently in the USDA pipeline awaiting agency approval—have been engineered for use with older and more hazardous pesticides like 2,4-D and dicamba. 2,4-D resistant corn alone is expected to drive a 25-fold increase in the use of 2,4-D on corn over the next six years, and weed scientists are predicting a new epidemic of herbicide-resistant “superweeds.”

In addition to the emergence of superweeds, pesticides drifting off-target to damage neighboring crops is a key concern among farmers. This is why the Save Our Crops coalition of conventional farmers objects to the new generation of herbicide-resistant GE crops, a fundamental concern powerfully stated by Indiana soybean farmer, Troy Roush, in the video below.

What about organic farming?

Lynas also claims that GE agriculture protects biodiversity and that organic agriculture is no better for people or the environment. Yet by definition, organic farming removes chemical pesticides from the environment, thereby protecting farmers, farmworkers and their families, rural communities and children (as well as workers at pesticide manufacturing facilities) who bear disproportionate risks from pesticide exposure. See any number of articles by my co-worker Kristin Schafer, who tracks the science documenting health impacts of pesticides. The literature on environmental harms of pesticides is likewise vast.

In terms of biodiversity, it is GE soy in Brazil and Argentina — not organic farming — that drives Amazonian deforestation, threatening the region’s fauna and flora. The IAASTD Latin America report cites damage to the Amazon, the Cerrado in Brazil and the Yungas forest in Argentina from the expansion of GE soybean plantations there, and calls for measures prohibiting the transfer of GE seeds among countries that are centers of genetic diversity for those crops.

Lynas goes on to accuse organic farmers of violating the rights and ability of GE farmers to produce their crops. In reality, it’s the other way around: GE production threatens both organic and conventional farms and rural livelihoods with chemical drift and genetic contamination.

Finally, while hunger is not a matter of scarcity, it is worth noting that organic, small-scale farming can feed the world. A comprehensive examination of nearly 300 studies worldwide shows that organic farms in developing countries outperformed conventional practices by 57%, and that organic agriculture could produce enough food, on a per capita basis, to provide 2,640 to 4,380 calories per person per day — more than the suggested intake for healthy adults.

An in-depth UNEP/UNCTAD report on organic agriculture and food security in Africa likewise concluded that organic farming provides one of the most robust solutions to that region’s food needs. For decades, cutting-edge research by the international Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), the Rodale Institute and the Organic Farming Research Foundation has spearheaded scientific progress in the field and continues to demonstrate organic farming’s high levels of water and land use efficiency.

Science & democracy

Science works best when done democratically; that is, in ways consistent with democratic values of transparency, accountability and participatory decision-making.

When Lynas concluded his speech, “I don’t know about you, but I’ve had enough. The GM debate is over. It is finished,” he rejected both science and democracy. That’s really too bad.

Fortunately, we have many genuine models of science and democracy in action. When professional scientists engage respectfully with farmer-scientists, amazing things happen. When rural communities engage in grassroots science — whether monitoring pesticide drift in California, evaluating predator-prey dynamics in Indonesia, or tackling cassava mosaic virus in the Congo — we all benefit.

It’s past time to move on from debunking empty arguments, and get back to the inspiring, creative work that so many are already engaged in: building vibrant food and farming systems and crafting smart policies, grounded in science and dedicated to the proposition that honesty, transparency and civic engagement matter.

As a scientist at Pesticide Action Network, I am frequently asked these days to explain what genetically engineered (GE) crops have to do with pesticides. When I answer that GE crops both contain and drive up pesticide use, I am often met with earnest incredulity. We seem to need to believe that GE technology is the best thing since sliced bread.

On a radio program just last week, a caller voiced his genuine hopes to me that GE crops would provide a green solution to the woes of the world since he’d heard that these crops increase yield, cure blindness and reduce pesticide use. I was sorry to have to disappoint him on all counts, since GE crops have consistently failed to improve yield, have done nothing to date for Vitamin A deficiency-related blindness and have driven increases in pesticide use since their introduction some sixteen years ago.

On this last point, a new study on GE crops out last week added yet more weight to the body of evidence contradicting the GE crop industry’s long-standing myth. Published Friday in the journal Environmental Sciences Europe, the Washington State University (WSU) study offers a simple but devastating finding: GE seeds dramatically increase pesticide use, and that use will grow unless we change the course of our food and farming system.

So here it is, the pesticide industry’s dirty little secret: GE seeds are no green solution to the world’s food needs, but are rather the growth engine of the world’s biggest pesticide companies. In point of fact, the latest wave of GE crops is expected to drive a 25-fold increase in the use of one particularly nasty pesticide (2,4-D) in corn over the next seven years.

Analyzing USDA data, the study—authored by WSU research professor Charles Benbrook, a former National Academy of Sciences’ executive director—shows that GE crops have driven up overall pesticide use across the country, with 400 million more pounds applied from 1996 to 2011. Just last year, GE crops used 20 percent more pesticides on average than non-GE crops. The adoption of herbicide-resistant crop technology has been the primary driver, contributing to a 527 million pound increase in herbicide use during the same period. And the increase in pesticide use is expected to continue, if USDA approves the next wave of GE herbicide-resistant crops.

Back to the future: new GE seeds and old pesticides

These new data remind us that–notwithstanding the marketing tactics of Monsanto, DuPont and Dow–our farmers and agroecosystems remain tethered to the pesticide treadmill in ways that we all pay for in one way or another.

At least two-dozen types of weeds are now resistant to glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup. Farmers throughout the southeast and, increasingly, the Midwest, are abandoning entire fields to these ‘superweeds.’ In California, the most agriculturally productive and diverse state in the nation, weeds have developed resistance to both glyphosate and paraquat, infesting up to an estimated million acres, with the area and type of resistant weeds continuing to rise. As weeds become increasingly resistant to RoundUp, farmers use greater quantities of the product and eventually resort to older, even more dangerous pesticides. And as the Benbrook study notes, farmers are on the hook for these less effective, increasingly hazardous and expensive products.

The next cycle of the treadmill is especially frightening. 2,4-D-resistant corn is the first in a new flood of industry products currently under consideration by USDA. If the agency approves it and other 2,4-D crops, use of this hazardous pesticide in corn is expect to surge 25-fold over the next seven years, putting farms, farmers and rural communities in harm’s way. The chemical has been linked to birth defects, neurological damage and cancer, and children are especially susceptible to its effects. For these reasons, 70 medical doctors and health professionals joined Pesticide Action Network this summer in urging EPA to reject Dow AgroScience’s application for new uses of 2,4-D.

What now?

Monsanto, Dow and other major pesticide companies stand to benefit the most from the continued use of glyphosate and surge in 2,4-D and other chemical sales that will accompany the next round of herbicide-based GE crops. So it should come as no surprise that the largest opponents of California’s ‘Right to Know’ ballot initiative to label GE foods are the pesticide companies, together spending nearly $20 million to blanket the airwaves with false and misleading ads about the initiative. I am heartened, however, by recent polls showing Californians resolute in their demand that GE food be labeled.

Of even greater importance, perhaps, is the fact that people are asking serious questions about this technology, and its place in our food and farming systems. Finally we are having a genuine public conversation about genetic engineering, pesticides, our health, our rights and who should control what we eat and how we grow our food: corporations or communities. True, we should have had this conversation sixteen years ago, before the first GE seeds were ushered to market by our public agencies, without adequate safety or efficacy testing. But here and now is still a very good place to start.

Additional resources for editors and reporters:

• Summary of existing research on genetic engineering.

• Additional information on 2,4-D corn and the other genetically engineered crops in the pipeline.

• Major findings and summary of new report from Washington State University.

Pesticide Action Network North America (PAN North America, or PANNA) works to replace the use of hazardous pesticides with ecologically sound and socially just alternatives. As one of five PAN Regional Centers worldwide, we link local and international consumer, labor, health, environment and agriculture groups into an international citizens’ action network. This network challenges the global proliferation of pesticides, defends basic rights to health and environmental quality, and works to ensure the transition to a just and viable society.

Photo: Aerial view of crop duster, by Shutterstock

Very big news exploding across the media yesterday. Eating genetically engineered (GE) corn has been strongly linked to serious health effects—including mammary tumors, kidney and liver damage. A team of European scientists today released the first ever long-term animal feeding study of the health effects of eating GE foods in the peer-reviewed journal Food and Chemical Toxicology. 

How and why we can find ourselves 15 years into the commercialization of GE crops without a single long-term, animal health impact study until now is the story beneath this story. I’ll get to that in a minute.

Meanwhile, news of the study has gained global currency and already France has called for a probe that could lead to European Union intervention including emergency suspension of imports of the GE corn, a Monsanto product. Back at home, the findings take on particular relevance as California voters consider the Proposition 37 “Right to Know” initiative to label GE foods and as USDA considers approving a new wave of GE crops, starting with 2,4-D corn.

What the study says

In a nutshell, the scientists—led by University of Caen molecular biologist Gilles-Eric Séralini—tested the long-term health effects of feeding rats diets consisting of different percentages of Monsanto’s RoundUp-Ready corn, both from fields treated and not treated with the herbicide RoundUp. They also tested the effects of RoundUp alone by comparing the health of rats fed a conventional (non-GE) corn diet with and without RoundUp added to their water, at the levels that have been found in tapwater or in GE feed.

The researchers found that rats fed GE corn and those whose water contained environmentally relevant levels of the herbicide RoundUp faced the following:

• 2 to 3 times more large tumors than the control group;

• Females developed mammary and pituitary gland tumors, suffered pituitary gland abnormalities and hormone disruption;
• Male rats also developed tumors, but in particular experienced serious kidney and liver damage;

• 50 percent of males and 70 percent of females died prematurely compared to 30 percent and 20 percent respectively in the control groups.

And the effects grew over time, so that by the beginning of the second year of the study, 50-80 percent of females in all treated groups had developed large tumors versus only 30 percent of the control group.

Why haven’t we heard of these kinds of results before? To date we’ve only had a handful of short-term lab studies, almost none stretching longer than 90 days, the equivalent of adolescence in the study animals. The kinds of tumors and organ damage found by the European scientists take a bit more time to develop.

No single study can be definitive, but what Séralini’s work points to is the need to take very seriously, and more rigorously understand, the risks to human health posed by GE crops and foods.

Who knew?

And here’s the bigger news story: why is this the first long-term health study on the effects of eating GE foods ever to have taken place, despite their presence in our food supply for 15 years?

Unfortunately, independent research in the U.S. into the health effects of GE foods before they are released into our food supply has been virtually impossible. The “Big 6” pesticide and biotech companies that manufacture and tightly control patents on GE products have suppressed and restricted research into the efficacy and health impacts of their products. Licensing agreements expressly forbid research unless it has been approved by the patent-holders, and they retain and exercise the right to prevent publication when results are not as desired.

Scientists have been complaining about this state of affairs since at least 1999. More recently in 2010, a Scientific American editorial again noted both the lack of access and suppression of research.

Industry repeatedly insists that their GE products are safe, but they do so on the basis of studies that have never been repeated and have been criticized by independent scientists as deeply flawed. Repeating a talking point is not the same thing as repeating a study.

Meanwhile, contrary to popular belief, U.S. regulators at the Food and Drug Administration do not require independent studies verifying safety before approving the release of these products into our food supply.

The Séralini study will draw predictable opposition from Dow and Monsanto as these companies rush new GE crops like 2,4-D-resistant corn to market. And who knows how long this particular news cycle will take to play out.

I can only hope that the shockwaves generated by this study will wake up the regulators in our public agencies who have been willfully asleep at the switch for 15 years now. In the meantime (since said regulators seem to be clinging fast to their pillows), it appears to be up to Americans to assert our right to know what’s in our food and to choose for ourselves whether to eat genetically engineered products or not. This fundamental right to know will be at the ballot box in November when Californians have the opportunity to vote for Proposition 37 and demand labeling of genetically engineered foods.

Learn more: Read PANNA’s position on Proposition 37, see our summary of existing research on health and environmental impacts of genetically engineered foods and check out the fully referenced synthesis by independent scientists here.

Originally published by PANNA’s blog

However—and this is no small matter—by conflating fringe climate-deniers with established scientists raising valid concerns about the effects of GMOs, Federoff undermines the scientific integrity that she purports to uphold. The hypocrisy is astonishing.

The reason we cannot get a reality-based conversation started on GMOs is because we have precious little independent science on their effectiveness or safety. We know so little about GMOs’ safety or efficacy because global ag biotech firms like Monsanto, Dow and DuPont actively suppress science under the heading of protecting “confidential business information.” Companies routinely deny scientists’ research requests and suppress publication of research by threatening legal action, a practice one scientist describes as “chilling.”

In February 2009, 26 corn-pest scientists anonymously submitted a statement to U.S. EPA decrying industry’s prohibitive restrictions on independent research, especially as concerns ag biotech. They submitted the following statement anonymously for fear of being blacklisted:

“Technology/stewardship agreements required for the purchase of genetically modified seed explicitly prohibit research. These agreements inhibit public scientists from pursuing their mandated role on behalf of the public good unless the research is approved by industry. As a result of restricted access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology, its performance, its management implications, IRM, and its interactions with insect biology. Consequently, data flowing to an EPA Scientific Advisory Panel from the public sector is unduly limited.”

The same year, the editors of Scientific American warned of the debilitating effects of the ag biotech industry’s attacks on science:

 “Unfortunately, it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised. That is because agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers.”

When the world’s top scientists have been allowed to examine freely the available evidence, unfettered by corporate restrictions, the results stand in startling contrast to industry claims. Four years ago, the agricultural equivalent of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was completed, the World Bank and UN-led International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD). I participated as a lead author in that rigorous 4-year process, in which over 400 scientist and development experts from more than 80 countries conducted the most comprehensive assessment of international agricultural technology to date. The IAASTD’s findings were clear:

1. Genetically engineered crops have failed to deliver on industry promises of increased yields, nutritional value, salt or drought-tolerance.
2. The unprecedented pace of corporate concentration in the pesticide and seed industry has enabled the ag biotech industry to exert undue influence over public policy and research institutions, funneling public resources towards products that have benefited their manufacturers without generating benefits for the world’s poor.
3. The developing world’s best hopes for feeding itself, especially under conditions of climate change, lie not in GMOs, but rather in approaches such as agroecology—the integration of cutting-edge agroecological sciences with farmer innovation and locally appropriate, productive and profitable, ecological farming practices. The ability of agroecology to double food production within 10 years was recently re-affirmed by the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food.

So yes, let’s beat back the “anti-science lobby” and restore scientific integrity to public policy and independence and transparency to our research institutions. The future of our planet depends on it.

Originally published on PANNA