GEO Watch Commentary | Former EPA official affirms there are multiple problems with GMOs
 |
Image courtesy of Organic Consumers |
Moderator’s Note: Since 1992, when I
joined the Board of Directors of the Council for Responsible Genetics (CRG),[1]
I have carefully monitored scientific developments related to the predictive
ecology and public health and environmental health impacts of transgenic
technologies. Throughout this period, there
have been very few moments when former or current EPA, USDA, or FDA scientists served as ‘whistleblowers’ on the dismal and ultimately unscientific processes these federal agencies rely on to review and approve GMO crops.
Yesterday was one of those profound moments when a
former EPA biosafety scientist by the name of Ramon J. Seidler revealed that
scientists – including government employees – have long had multiple problems
with GMOs. Dr. Seidler is a
professor of microbiology and a retired senior scientist and team leader for
the Environmental Protection Agency’s biosafety program.
This is dramatic news and comes in the midst of a gathering in Jackson
County, Oregon addressing a
countywide ban on the planting of GMO seed
beets and seed grasses by Monsanto and Syngenta. The May 20 ballot is a pivotal
moment in the struggle against GMOs in the Pacific Northwest and comes as
Monsanto and its allies continue to pressure Congress to pass legislation banning
state-level labeling laws requiring identification of GMO crops and
processed food ingredients.
Just this past Thursday, Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kansas) introduced
legislation to the House for a Safe
and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2014 (a.k.a. HR
4432) The industry-supported legislation would “amend the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to food produced from, containing, or
consisting of a bioengineered organism, the labeling of natural foods…”
The Jackson County election could become a vital turning point in the
strategy of the nonGMO and pro-sustainable and organic farming communities
because it seeks to address the production of GMO seed rather than the
consumption of GMO foods. This shifts the focus from the equally important
right of the consumer to know their food through labeling to the establishment
of GMO-free farming communities inside zones designed to protect key bioregions
involved in the invaluable production of heirloom native and naturalized gene
lines for all commercial food, fodder, turf, orchard, and bramble cultivars.
In
an article dated April 13, 2014 and appearing in the
Ashland, Oregon-based newspaper, Daily
Tribune, Dr. Seidler punctures holes in nearly every major
industry-articulated argument made in defense of GMOs. For example, the former
EPA scientist affirms what a growing number of scientists have been arguing for
decades – including CRG and more recently the Center for Food Safety and the
Biosafety Alliance – that GMO crops do not have a significant increased
yield compared to conventional nonGMO or organic crops.
Another key point made by Dr. Seidler is that the patenting system that
undergirds the development of GMO technology actually “stifles research” which
contradicts biotechnology industry claims that patents are necessary to conduct
research and promote innovation. I have been making this same argument in this
blog since 2006 and the most significant research I believe is being stifled is
related to the development of the agroecology paradigm. But Dr. Seidler
declares that he is “…deeply
troubled to report that promises of patent enforcement by American agrichemical
seed companies have prevented U.S. scientists from researching what some
exclaim are ‘problems’ associated with GMO crops.” In other words, agrichemical
seed companies are using patents to block research on environmental risks,
productivity, and public health.
There are several other important rebuttals offered
by Dr. Seidler but these two points should suffice to
retract the unwise, unscientific, and highly politicized federal and state governmental
support for transgenic technologies. As Seidler notes, quoting the chief technology officer for
Monsanto, “American farmers are smart and wouldn’t adapt a technology that didn’t
have tangible benefits.” And so, what? The USDA, a veritable subsidiary of
Monsanto et al., went ahead and promoted the technology anyway despite
scientists’ warnings to governmental authorities during both Republican and
Democratic administrations since the 1990s.
The writing is now more
clearly on the wall: Monsanto seems desperate and dead in the water. Since
August 2013, hedge fund managers and even some Monsanto executives have dumped the company’s stock. Other large institutional investors are under
increasing pressure to divest from Monsanto, Syngenta, and other biotech stocks
and these trends will likely increase as transgenic technology failures become
the focus of attention in the socially responsible investment community.
The principal reason for
these corporate troubles is the persistent record of failure of transgenic and
post-transgenic technologies (i.e., RNA interference). The same will happen
with the upcoming replacements for glyphosate and Bt Cry protein applications. These
‘second generation’ stacked-traits transgenic crops are touted as a movement
toward a futuristic sustainable agriculture but instead constitute a perverse back-to-the-future
nightmare scenario: The second gen transgenic technologies involve returning to
older and even more deadly biocides like the case of a new genetically
engineered (GE) soybean crop called FG72 produced by Bayer CropScience that will
be paired with Isoxaflutole (isox), a pesticide the EPA
classified as a human carcinogen in 1998 (see our post of September
5, 2013).
This is the same pesticide
that Syngenta proposes for use on their U.S. soybeans. Dr. Seidler also reports
“scientists predict…isox use will greatly accelerate and…become one of the new
controversial poisons used on our foods.” He wonders “if Syngenta will conduct
exploratory experiments [in Jackson County, Oregon] with sugarbeets using isox
or 2,4-D.” Syngenta currently uses land in Jackson County to produce glyphosate-resistant
seeds for Midwest sugarbeet plantations.
The EPA, USDA, and FDA – all
with somewhat overlapping and contradictory regulatory processes – are captive
to serving these narrow corporate interests with their constant need to amplify
and modify the scientific, legal, and political economic frameworks that
prevent scientists from the conduct of accurate and independent (preferably
professional third party) verification of all relevant cumulative risk and
environmental justice impacts of GMO crops including all new pending transgenic
and post-transgenic technologies.
As a service to our
readers, we are reposting Ramon J. Seidler’s article. The original source is here: The
Ashland Tribune.
 |
Image courtesy of Our Family Farms Coalition |
Scientists find multiple problems with
GMOs
Ramon J.
Seidler, Ph.D. | Jackson County, Oregon
| April 13, 2014
“GMO seeds have not been
shown to definitively increase yield potentials” and “in fact, the yields of
herbicide-tolerant or insect-resistant seeds may be occasionally lower than the
yields of conventional varieties.”
A February 2014 U.S.
Department of Agriculture report declared what many scientists already knew:
There are no significant differences in yields of GMO and non-GMO crops. When
asked about the USDA report, the chief technology officer for Monsanto
declared, “American farmers are smart and wouldn’t adapt a technology that didn’t
have tangible benefits.”
Are the USDA and scientists
around the world wrong in their conclusion about failure to yield? No.
Agroeconomists have shown
repeatedly that the best-yielding, most-affordable crop varieties, to “feed the
world”, are those derived from conventional non-GMO hybrids (U.N Commission on
Trade and Development).
Furthermore, CNBC’s chief
news correspondent, Mark Koba, quoted Mark Spitznagel, the chief investment
officer of a billion-dollar investment firm, as saying GMOs are “distorting the
natural process and will eventually lead to ruin,” and, “Agriculture is heading
for a wall.”
Patented GMO crops stifle research
As a lifelong scientist, I
am deeply troubled to report that promises of patent enforcement by American
agrichemical seed companies have prevented U.S. scientists from researching
what some exclaim are “problems” associated with GMO crops. We will not know
the facts as long as the seeds and plants that we, our children, pets and
livestock consume are not made available for conducting long-term, controlled
experiments.
Norwegian scientists
recently detected Roundup in 10 of 10 farms using genetically engineered
soybeans. We had to also learn from these Norwegian (not American) scientists
that the nutritional composition of soybeans grown on 31 Ohio farms differed
depending upon the type of farm management system employed. Soybeans harvested
from organic farms had higher concentrations of protein and essential amino
acids, and higher concentrations of two minerals, and no Roundup residues (Food
Chem. 2014).
Now we know from the
scientific literature that the same concentrations of Roundup residues in
soybeans is sufficient in laboratory assays to: induce hormone disruptions
during frog development (mixed-sex frogs); kill young trout and tadpoles; stop
the growth of earthworms in soil; inhibit activities of beneficial soil and human
gut bacteria; and stimulate the growth of human breast-cancer cells assayed
under laboratory conditions.
Toxin-resistant corn
rootworm outbreaks are plaguing at least five Midwest corn-growing states, and
the problems are related to failures in GMO management techniques (Proceedings,
National Academy of Sciences, March 2014). An entomology professor from Cornell
stated resistance problems could have been resolved sooner if Monsanto had
allowed American scientists access to investigate and confirm the presence of
the toxin-resistant insects (http://wrd.cm/1qogw9e).
A premier seed-growing location
Syngenta, a foreign
corporation, is here in Jackson County producing Roundup-resistant seeds for
Midwest sugarbeet plantations. The history of this agrochemical corporation
goes deep to the first productions of DDT, 2,4-D, and manufacture of the
controversial herbicide, Atrazine. This history seems consistent with the
recent announcement that Syngenta will use a probable carcinogen, isoxaflutole
(isox) initially on their U.S. soybeans. Scientists predict that isox use will
greatly accelerate and will soon become one of the new controversial poisons
used on our foods. One can only wonder if Syngenta will conduct exploratory
experiments locally with sugarbeets using isox or 2,4-D.
More secrecy
Unfortunately, seed buyers
have canceled local Swiss chard contracts because of the likelihood of
cross-pollination by sugar beets. Sugar beet pollen travels two to four miles
(Beta Seed Company, Oregon) and cross-pollination is likely with chard because
GMO farms are usually secretly located. Syngenta contributes little to the
local economy, while closing down business opportunities of permanent, local,
tax-paying American farmers. Since glyphosate is already in our urine, air and rain,
it was frightening to learn one of the known Syngenta crop farms is situated in
proximity to two of Ashland’s schools.
I, personally, resent this
intrusion since my stepdaughter is a student at this school. She doesn’t have
the opportunity to know when the Roundup-containing hormone disruptor(s) will
be flying through the air and be inhaled by young, developing students.
Residents can take control of these insensitive practices by voting yes on
15-119 to return local control to where it belongs, here in Jackson County, not
in Salem, not in Washington, D.C., and certainly not in Switzerland.
Ramon J. Seidler, Ph.D., of
Ashland, is a professor of microbiology and a retired senior scientist and team
leader for the Environmental Protection Agency’s biosafety program.
Comments
Post a Comment