False claims and flawed conclusions being used to push GMO crops - TruePublica
False claims and flawed conclusions being used to push GMO crops
By Colin Todhunter – Writing in India’s Deccan Herald newspaper on 26 January 2016, Kalyan Ray places
great store in a flawed year-old British Parliament document to promote
a pro-GMO agenda. According to Ray, the document ‘Advanced Genetic Techniquesfor Crop Improvement: Regulation, risks and precaution’
from the House of Commons’ Science and Technology Committee reflects
several arguments in favour of GM crops that certain Indian scientists
have been voicing for years.
He asserts that the weight of peer-reviewed scientific evidence has
shown the EU-adopted ‘precautionary principle’ towards GMO to be
misguided. In his view, where genetically modified crops have been shown
to pose a risk, this has invariably been a result of the trait
displayed — for example, herbicide tolerance — rather than the
technology itself. Ray adds that no inherent risks have so far been
identified to human or animal health from this consumption or to the
environment from their cultivation.
Rays seems to concur with the report’s conclusion that Europe’s
precautionary GMO regulation is preventing the adoption of GM crops in
the UK, Europe and the developing world.
He says: “Worldwide, over 175 million hectares are dedicated to GM
crop, accounting for 12 per cent of arable land. No inherent risks have
so far been identified to human or animal health from this consumption
or to the environment from their cultivation.”
Implicit in this claim is a common tactic: the industry does not have
to prove safety (in its view), but now GM has been fraudulently (see Steven Druker’s book)
released onto the market, the onus is placed on everyone else to prove
it is unsafe – regardless of the fact that clear, serious safety issues
were downplayed or silenced back in the 1990s when GM was being forced
onto the US public (again, see Druker).
Moreover, the implication of the above quote is that farmers are
freely choosing to plant GM. This is based more on free-market ideology
than actual fact. Aside from employing coercive tactics to
try to get GMO into countries, the closing off of alternatives plays a
major role in influencing adoption of certain technology (see this for how the Gates Foundation is supporting agro dealer networks to push chemical intensive agriculture in Africa, this on Bt cotton in India and this on Monsanto’s game plan in Ukraine).
Ray’s claim about GMO technology not posing unique risks to health or the environment is not only wrong (for example, see this and this),
but any implications derived from this claim that GM is no different
from conventional breeding techniques is also incorrect and needs to be challenged.
Furthermore, it is conventional breeding techniques that are delivering
on the promises that GM has thus far failed to deliver on (see page 8
of this document) and which the GM industry often attempts to pass off as its own successes.
However, Ray’s biggest mistake is relying on a seriously flawed report to try to make a case for GMO.
“Shocking ignorance” being use to promote GMO
