First genetically engineered plants were created 30 years ago. Commercial growing in the USA began almost 20 years ago. Initially, although US farmers had a number of advantages from cultivating herbicide-resistant crops (savings in working time, spraying lesser amounts of herbicide to kill weeds) this is now mostly reversed. The weeds have adapted to the cultivation of the genetically engineered plants so that farmers are experiencing a substantial increase in both working hours and the amounts of herbicide they require. Even the pest insects targeted by the cultivation of insecticide-producing plants have partially adapted. Secondary pests have now spread throughout maize cultivations and we have a scenario where plants have been genetically engineered to produce up to six different toxins. Agricultural technologies are drawing farmers into a production systemisation that will force agriculture towards more industrialisation and massively increase costs for seeds, without there being a substantial increase in yields or significant savings in the amounts of spray required.
Agrochemical companies such as Monsanto are not traditional breeders. When genetic engineering was introduced and it became possible to file far-reaching patents, these kinds of companies saw an opportunity to access the market and implement new strategies for maximum profit. In the meantime, companies such as Monsanto, Dupont and Syngenta, dominate the international seed market even in conventional breeding sectors. Prices for seeds are increasing and the number of farmers using seeds from their own harvest has fallen steeply. Amongst other things, companies are resorting to sending out detectives to investigate possible patent infringements and, in the USA, the available range of conventional types of plant breeds such as maize is already strongly reduced. In future, developments in the USA point to the continuing strong influence of agro-chemical companies, and the further neglect of alternative growing methods, which would lead to an effective reduction in the use of herbicide sprays.
Contamination with non-authorised genetically engineered plants has already caused millions of dollars worth of damage in the USA. Furthermore, contamination with plants authorised for cultivation is not systematically registered and, as yet, there are no co-existence or liability regulations in place, so that in some regions it is no longer possible to have a non-genetically engineered and/or ecological form of agriculture. The actual economic damage to non-genetically engineered products cannot be quantified.
US industry has, so far, thwarted any attempt to introduce the labelling of genetically engineered products in food. The consequence is that consumers do not have any real choice and the markets are not differentiated as they are in the EU. Accordingly, this has affected agricultural practice. Consumers do not have sufficient influence through their purchasing behaviour to counteract undesirable developments in agriculture. At the same time, consumers in the USA are exposed to a whole range of insufficiently investigated risks regarding unintended substances from plant metabolism, from residues from complementary herbicides and from the properties of additional proteins produced in the plants. As yet, there is no way of monitoring the actual effects that consumption of these products might have.
The cultivation of genetically engineered plants is closely associated with substantial increases in the amounts of herbicide required. Contamination with certain insecticides has also increased significantly. In particular, it has been proven that the cultivation of herbicide-resistant plants leads to a reduction in biodiversity as well as having an effect on soil and plant health. Many scientists are warning that there is a danger to the health of people living in places where crops are regularly sprayed with large amounts of glyphosate. Furthermore, the effects of insecticide-producing plants on so-called non-target organisms have still not been properly investigated.
Genetically engineered rapeseed has already managed to escape from the fields into the environment from where it cannot be withdrawn, and from where it evades any adequate control of the effect it has on the environment. The long-term consequences of such genetically engineered plants escaping into the wild cannot be reliably assessed.
As yet, genetically engineered maize is only grown in very few regions of the EU. However, in 2013, a whole series of decisions can be expected to be made including a decision on the cultivation of herbicide resistant soybean. Considering the outcome that cultivation of such plants has had in the USA, these pending decisions should be considered as decisive for the future development of agriculture in the EU. Importing millions of tons of feed means that a whole range of products from US agriculture are finding their way into food production in the EU. With these products, residues from herbicides and/or insecticides, which were either completely absent or only present in smaller amounts, will be continuously absorbed into animal feed. The consequences for the long-term health of livestock, and products derived thereof has not yet been adequately investigated.
The consequences of having patents on seeds have long since reached the EU. Although this started with patents on genetically engineered plants, there are now patents on conventional breeds and many plant-breeding companies have been bought up. Monsanto, for example, already has a substantial share of trade with vegetable seeds in the EU, even though no genetically engineered vegetables are produced here.
Source:
Dr. Christoph Then. 30 years of genetically engineered plants - 20 years of commercial cultivation in the United States: a critical assessment, January 2013 (attached)
The study was written for Martin Häusling, Green Party, Member of the European Parliament.
The English version edited and published by Testbiotech
- Login om te reageren