posted May 18, 2004 01:44 AM            

Mon May 17, 9:29 PM ET

By NICOLE WINFIELD, Associated Press Writer

ROME - Genetically modified crops are helping poor farmers and have posed no adverse health or environmental effects so far, the U.N. food agency said Monday in a report on how biotechnology can help feed the world's hungry.

The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization called for greater government regulation and monitoring of genetically modified, or transgenic, products to ensure they are safely used and said more research is needed on their long-term health and environmental impacts.

In a positive report likely to fuel the biotech debate, the agency said the biggest problem with GM technology is that it has not spread fast enough to small farmers and has focused on crops mostly of use to big commercial interests.

U.N. officials stressed that GM products were only one tool to help poor farmers, who still need access to fair markets, credit and decent land. But they said transgenic technology has great potential for increasing crop yields, reducing costs to customers and improving the nutritional value of foods.

"FAO believes that biotechnology, including genetic engineering, can benefit the poor, but that the gains are not guaranteed," said Hartwig de Haen, assistant director-general of the FAO's economic and social department.

"The international community must act decisively if it wants to ensure that this technology can also be accessible and useful to the poor."

Transgenic crops have spread widely in recent years, accounting for 5 percent of the world's crop area and increasing by about 15 percent a year, the agency said. The use of GM crops is widespread in the United States, but GM foods face public opposition in parts of Europe and Africa.

The report comes the same week the European Union is to approve imports of genetically modified corn for human consumption, ending a six-year moratorium. Last month, European countries started enforcing the world's strictest rules on labeling genetically modified foods.

De Haen said one reason the United Nations compiled the report was to give the public and governments sound science about biotech, particularly after Zambia refused U.N. food aid in 2002 because the food was genetically modified.

Proponents of GM foods say plants that can resist insects and be fortified with extra vitamins are a boon to farmers and consumers.

Opponents say the crops pose unknown health and environmental risks, and the ones who benefit most are the multinational corporations that develop and sell GM seeds.

Yet the report found that while private companies have been largely responsible for selling the seeds, "it is the producers and consumers who are reaping the largest share of the economic benefits of transgenic crops."

The report also said no known adverse health or environmental effects have been recorded.

Scientists differ on the significance of the environmental impact, saying genes from GM crops can be transferred to wild species. However, the report said scientists differ on whether that is a bad thing.

The report also pointed out some environmental and health benefits from using transgenic crops. Foods can be made with reduced allergens or improved nutritional qualities, and the reduction in pesticides has had "demonstrable health benefits" for farm workers in China, it said.

However, FAO said the private sector was focusing too much on technology for crops that benefit big commercial interests, such as maize, soybean, canola and cotton, which in 2003 accounted for 99 percent of GM crops. Some examples are GM cotton grown in Africa, and GM corn and soybeans grown in the United States.

Basic food crops for the poor — including cassava, potatoes, rice and wheat — have received little attention from scientists, it said.

One critic of GM foods, Greenpeace, has maintained such crops pose an unacceptable risk to human health and the environment.

"We know there is ample food on the planet," said Greenpeace science adviser Doreen Stabinsky. "Hunger is not a problem that needs technical solutions. It needs political will and appropriate policies."

Louise Fresco, assistant director-general for FAO's agriculture department, said the developing world will need to increase food production to feed its growing population.

Those countries, she said, must figure out how to regulate and monitor biotechnology, noting that the types of GM crops in use and the traits generally applied to them — resistance to pests and diseases — are merely first-generation uses of the technology.

"The next generation is going to be much more important. It's going to affect many more crops, many more traits, traits that are of dire interest to the poor," she said.

"This is where the countries have to be prepared to say 'Yes, it's worth us taking an unquantified, unknown small risk but the benefits are going to be great because it addresses some real needs.'"

******

Just wondering what if any thoughts anyone had about this. Personally, I'm not versed enough on the subject to really engage in too much debate about it, but I'm sure there are plenty others here who are.

From what I do know, I'd have to say that while in an ideal world I oppose GM crops, (esp. depending on how they modify it), in some regions of the world where food neither grows easily, nor is it easy to deliver because of inaccessibility, it just makes sense.

I did think this article was very well balanced, something too rare in journalism today.

posted May 18, 2004 02:12 PM            

quote:

---

poor farmers, who still need access to fair markets, credit and decent land.

---

quote:

---

accounting for 5 percent of the world's crop area and increasing by about 15 percent a year

---

Fact is-
Mediocre land can be transformed into hummus rich, bountiful land and deserts can be reclaimed for productive use using the techniques of permaculture or other agroecologic applied sciences.

These techniques should be the topic of widespread public debate but to the eye of corporate news media these techniques are non-existant. Why? Because these techniques are about creating healthy, bountiful, productive land in a way that does not offer corporations an opportunity to weasel their way in and squeeze profit from the blood of the land.

There are untold health risks and yet the companies that produce these crops are not forced to have GE crops scrutinized by any outside body of scientific inquiry. Apparently it is assumed that we can trust the corporation to make sure the food is safe.
Consider, the first GE food, Calgene Flavr Savr tomato was shown to cause stomach lesions in laboratory rats but the FDA still allowed it to be sold. A Japanese dietary supplement created with genetic engineering, called L-tryophan killed 37 people and disabled 1,500 others when it was discovered a toxic contaminant was the by-product of the genetic engineering process.

The FDA continues to refuse requiring pre-market toxicological testing for GE foods or any toxicity monitoring whatsoever.

quote:

---

A study published in The New England Journal of Medicine showed that when a gene from a Brazil nut was engineered into soybeans, peole allergic to nuts had serious reactions to the product. At least one food, a Pioneer Hi-Bred International soybean, was abandoned because of this problem. Without labeling, people with known food allergies have no way of avoiding the potenitally serious health consequences of eathing GE foods containing hidden allerginic material.~Joseph Mendelson III, legal director for the International Center for Technology Assessment

---

Genetic engineering may also increase the levels of allergy-causing proteins already present in the plant to the point of prompting increased human allergenic response.
Also, genetic engineering is known to create some novel proteins which have never been included in human diets before and could potentially cause allergic reactions in people. FDA scientists have repeatedly warned about this new allergen potential. Yet the FDA ignores their scientists and does not require mandatory allergen testing, allowing millions of unsuspecting consumers exposed to a potentially serious health risk.

Now consider, corporations cannot guarantee genetically engineered crops will not contaminate non-GE crops. In 2000 StarLink corn, which was not approved for human consumption because of the potential allergen risk but was grown for livestock feed, contaminated the human corn supply resulting in a huge recall.

Farmers of non-GE foods are finding GE crop in their fields as the seeds from a neighboring farm blow into theirs. Which also results in the opportunity for big corporations to sue the pants off of these farmers since they argue that their seed has been 'stolen'. They send agents out to test the crops of farmers just for this purpose.

Also, when they engineer 'terminator' seeds. That is, so a plant doesn't produce a seed for the farmer to 'steal', the potential for contamination is frightening. Consider the posibility that this 'terminator' gene crosses with other plants and nighmarish scenarios loom possible.

I didn't think this article was very balanced. It tried to feign it but it's just for show. They don't give any alternatives, which makes the anti-GE side out to only have criticisms without having any suggestions as to solve the crisis of hunger. Then GE proponents get to have the appearance of 'trying to help' the world's hungry while these 'anti-progress' types hound them.

posted May 18, 2004 07:20 PM            

You know I agree with you on the seed issue. There is great danger in having control over the means of any part of food production vested in a small number of hands.

I also agree with Isis that there are some areas where traditional farming is extremely difficult or impossible and genetically altered seed targeted for the area would be helpful.

On the other hand, the proper soil amendments, compost, cover crops of clover or whatever nitrogen fixing crop will grow in the area would bring the soil fertility into a range that perhaps would make an area self sufficient, food wise.

The problem is it cannot be done in a short time. Even a year isn't enough.

I blame the UN which has crop producing programs but seems to ignore the areas that need it most.

It seems to me a 3 pronged approach is needed for some of those areas. First, sufficient food, delivered, stored and allocated. Second, teams of experienced farmers who are familiar with rescuing the soil and restoring fertility. Third, a few seasons of genetically altered crops in the area to feed people while the soil is being rebuilt.

I hate to sound wishy-washy but I don't think any one thing is going to save the day in some of those areas where people are starving.

posted May 20, 2004 02:46 PM            

I mean, if I remember correctly, you and I were mapped by Lost Leo as being at the two farthest extremes of the political spectrum and yet here we are.. strongly agreeing with eachother on a very crucial issue. That must mean we are correct in our view of this issue, right?

Granted, there's some differences in the details. I am of the opinion that the risks of GE crops are not worth using even for a limited amount of time. Admittedly, soil restoration is a process that takes a few years. The solution to that would be to reduce the luxury crops being grown for export in the countries where hunger is a major problem and grow staple food crops instead. Granted, this would be quite disruptive to the economies of such countries but if wealthy nations truly wanted to help then they would work to alleviate the negative effects of this. Once the mediocre or poor land had a few years to be transformed then they could get back to growing more sugar, coffee or cotton.
One of the potential risks of GE crops is that they could pass on resistant genes to weeds and thereby create 'superweeds'. This would be destructive to luxury crops and staple foods alike, anyway.

But hey, I want to just revel in our agreeance abit. We usually spend so much time arguing about our differences that I feel like just celebrating our unity on this issue!

posted May 22, 2004 12:08 AM            

Concerning GE crops and my comments, I was referring to very poor land that isn't fit to grow anything. I doubt premium crops for export are being grown on the land I was talking about. First issue to me is to feed the people who are on the verge of starvation. They don't have years to amend the soil and GE staple crops targeted for the existing conditions make a lot of sense to me. They also don't have any money to buy food and need the help right now. No one solution for all situations exists but it's clear to me genetically engineered seed stocks could and probably would take some of the pressure off while the soil is being amended and locals are trained in effective food production on the existing land. Otherwise, they will always be dependent on outside sources of food supplies. Some of these farmers or gardeners in areas with marginal, at best, land are sometimes forced to eat the seed needed for the next seasons crops to stay alive. At that point, they're facing starvation in the near future.

I don't know if GE crops are capable of mutating weeds into resistant strains or not but given the choice of starvation or super weeds, I think they would choose to live to be able to pull the weeds as they sprout. I think you would too. Is that something else we can agree on?

posted May 22, 2004 12:12 AM            

What about Cannabis?