No consensus over GMO foods safety – expert

Anti GMO-protesters stage a rally dressed as 'GM-Zombies' 

Russian ecologists demand a complete moratorium on genetically modified products in the country. Members of the National Association for Genetic Safety fear that the decree allowing production of GMO food in Russia might come into effect on 1 June 2014. Earlier a group of Russian lawmakers also called for toughening requirements for GMO foods in the country. Voice of Russia's Jay Johnson has talked to Louise Payton, policy officer at the London Soil Association, who spoke of the absence of a general consensus on GMO safety and the advent of safer technologies.

Do you share Russian ecologists’ concerns about GMO crops?

Yes, we certainly do.

In this connection, do you think Russia and other countries need a GMO-crops moratorium as soon as possible?

Yes, what we are seeing is this concern is spreading across the world. For example, in China there are reports that there are bans of GMO staple crops such as rice, and in India, the state of Kerala has banned GMO crops from planting, and in Europe, where there are very strong regulations on GMOs, in practice there are only tiny amounts of GMOs growing in Spain, and that is it. So, at the moment GMO-planting bans are quite common.

While the safety of GMO foods for humans and animals is yet to be proven, some experiments suggest that they may, after all, be dangerous to human health. What are thoughts on this?

It is often said that there is a consensus over the safety of GMO foods. In fact, scientists have recently signed a letter saying that there is no consensus over the safety of GMO foods. So, in other words we just don’t know about whether or not GMO foods are safe.

Isn’t it true that there are large multinational companies such as Monsanto that actively pursue scientists that do wish to go against the general consensus and wish to study and see what the effects of these GMO foods are?

Yes, there are concerns. One of those scientists, he published studies which find that there are grounds for concern and was harassed as a result. It’s unclear whether that is the case. But certainly there is a lack of long-time feeding studies, so when the crops are fed to animals in the lab over their lifetime to see what effect is there, these studies are actually finding that there are causes for concern and the reasons why we should be worried, whereas the majority of studies that are taken by the corporations are in fact very short-term and don’t find effect.

Well, I was led to believe that the scientists that did not toe the multinationals’ lines were eventually driven out of the industry. Their project-funding dried up and basically they became non-existent inside of the industry. But let me put that aside for a minute. In your opinion, do you feel that GMO products should be totally banned?

At the moment there is not a single GMO plant, which is actually allowed for planting in commercial level in the EU, but what is actually interesting is that in practice this results in a very small amount of GMOs planted in the EU. So, essentially what we are seeing is a very-very strong regulation against GMO planting. It is unlikely that this is going to get any more prevalence.

What is your forecast on the situation surrounding GMOs? Will we see more GMO foods foray into the market in the near future?

We actually remain quite optimistic. Concerns over GMOs are not going away, and we are seeing a lot of progress and other, safer forms of technology. And that certainly needs more focus, these are actually being delivered already. So, for example marker-assisted selection is a form of biotechnology, which doesn’t actually shift the genes using genetic manipulation. Instead it uses a knowledge of plant and animal genomes to identify individuals with desirable genetic traits and crossbreed them, so essentially speeding up the process of breeding, which is something that GM has long promised and never really delivered upon. And we are already seeing things like draught-resistant plants .voiceofrussia

Supreme Court hears landmark GM crop case

Two West Australian farmers are back in Perth's Supreme Court today in a case that could have consequences for the growing of genetically-modified crops. An organic farmer is suing his neighbour for loss of income and damages after his property was allegedly contaminated with the neighbour's genetically modified canola.

abc.net.au

GMO soybeans are bad for Mexico's beekeepers

Genetically modified organisms rarely stay put, as we've seen in cases where organic farmers have found their crops cross-bred with GMOs. Pollen has many ways of getting around, including the honey bee.

A new study published in Scientific Reports found that's bad news for beekeepers in Mexico. Mexico is the fourth largest producer of honey in the world, but the livelihoods of beekeepers could be threatened by GMO-soybeans, which makes its way into honey via pollen. The presence of GMO pollen in honey makes it difficult to export the product to Europe, where there's low-tolerance for genetically modified food. The contaminated honey can only be sold at substantially reduced rates if it's not rejected for sale altogether.

Scientists from the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute found that soybean crops are the source of GMO pollen in honey from the Yucatan. The authors write that although it's widely believed that self-pollinating soy flowers are not visited by bees, there is clear evidence that this is not the case.

"Bee colonies act as extremely sensitive environmental indicators," said senior researcher David Roubik in a statement. "Bees from a single colony may gather nectar and pollen resources from flowers in a 200-square-kilometer area. With an economy based on subsistence agriculture associated with honey production, the social implications of this shift in the status of honey are likely to be contentious and have profound implications for beekeeping in general."

Although the researchers emphasized that all of the soybean pollen came from plants that have been approved for human consumption, the findings are another example of how GMOs may travel trough the environment in unpredictable ways. Treehugger

Margaret Badore

Editor / New York

Margaret Badore is a multimedia reporter who covers food, fashion, recycling and sustainable living in New York City. She earned her undergraduate degree in writing and environmental studies at Sarah Lawrence College and has a master's degree from Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism. She previously worked as assistant editor at DietsInReview.com. Her work has appeared on Seventeen.com and in Real Detroit Weekly.

Margaret grew up outside of Detroit and has been figure skating since she was seven.

Follow Margaret Badore on Twitter and RSS!

Is Wheat the Next Big GMO for Monsanto Company?

Monsanto is caught in the middle of a unique situation. The anti-GMO (genetically modified organism) movement could be a threat to existing soybean and corn seed sales, while the potential to commercialize genetically modified (GM) wheat could create a huge new market opportunity. Monsanto's decision to either double-down on GMOs or shy away from a jeopardized industry may shape the future of agricultural technology.

A look into the GMO business
Corn, soybeans, wheat, and cotton are the four largest crops in the U.S. in terms of total sales, and wheat is the only one not grown with GM seed. Worldwide, wheat is the most widely grown crop. Advances in wheat crop technology are believed by many to be one of the most promising ways to address food shortages and starvation across the developing world.

In spite of the promise of GM wheat, DuPont and Monsanto both abandoned R&D efforts focusing on GM wheat at the turn of the century due in large part to each company's own market analysis. The decisions made by both companies were likely influenced at the time primarily by the price of wheat and a fear that the somewhat risky R&D investments wouldn't provide a strong enough return. The price farmers pay for GM wheat would have been notably higher than the existing hybrid seeds available, and given the market price of wheat balanced with what may have only been marginally increased yields, farmers may not have been as receptive to GM wheat as they have been to other cash crops.

The other complicating factor from a decade ago that remains in play today is the lingering suspicion that the international community will be reluctant to purchase GM wheat. China made clear their unease with GM crops at the end of 2013 when the country rejected two shipments of distiller's grain that contained corn product originating from a particular genetically modified seed. Stringent regulations on GMOs in the European Union (EU) add to the concern of international acceptance for newly developed wheat strains.

Monsanto and Syngenta are among the agribusiness giants willing to make the investment in GM wheat in spite of the potential downfalls. Both companies have advanced to the field testing stage, though more extensive testing on crop yields and other desired properties are needed before a commercial release becomes reality. As the technology continues to develop, the public relations battle will rage on between concerned consumers and activist groups at odds with wheat growers and wheat trade groups who are putting their support behind biotech research on the crop.

Getting out of the GMO business
There has always been a portion of the public against GMOs since their less controversial beginnings, and the anti-GMO movement is continually gaining momentum. In spite of falling short on attempts to require labelling of GMO foodstuffs in California and Washington, anti-GMO proponents are gaining more public attention as major food companies like General Mills and Chipotle join the movement.

Monsanto makes more money from the sale of genetically modified seed than all of its major competitors combined, yet the company's seeds and genomics business is not its fastest growing business sector. Monsanto is far from exiting the GM seed business as demonstrated by continued research and development (R&D) investments into new seed technologies, but the company is also investing heavily into other technologies such as climate and field condition modeling tools to help farmers get the most return from their crops. As public sentiment grows increasingly wary of GMOs, Monsanto is creating alternative methods for remaining the dominant agricultural technology company that farmers will continue to rely on for maximizing their yields.

The takeaway
Demand for wheat is projected to increase 40% by 2030, and the expectations for growth are not going unnoticed by the biggest companies in agribusiness. Whether or not GM wheat sales start contributing to the earnings of Monsanto, DuPont, and Syngenta is more dependent on how the engineered crop is received internationally than it is on domestic considerations. Nonetheless, expect anti-GMO activists in the U.S. to make it well known that adding wheat to the growing list of genetically modified seeds will not happen without a fight.

dailyfinance