GMW: Parliamentary speech on GM

[Guest guest]

GMW: Parliamentary speech on GM

" GM WATCH " <info

Wed, 24 Aug 2005 14:07:16 +0100

 

 

 

GM WATCH daily

http://www.gmwatch.org

---

This isn't new but it has to be one of the best parliamentary speeches

ever made on GM.

 

It takes in genome scrambling, Chuck Benbrook, CS Prakash, Florence

Wambugu, Wangari Maathai, Arpad Pusztai, Bishop Gutierrez, Father Sean

McDonagh, IG Farben, Terje Traavik, Michael Antoniou, Judy Carman and a

whole lot more!

 

excerpt: " Imagine if you will the Minister standing in this Chamber 40

years ago strongly defending James Hardie's right to mine asbestos and

to build fibro homes all over New South Wales. Imagine him saying that

James Hardie was providing much-needed jobs for workers and building

cheap and affordable homes for lower-paid people. Imagine him saying

further, " Fibro-using asbestos is a breakthrough technology and you

greenies are just Luddites in opposing the use of asbestos. " The Minister

would have accused us of being anti-business and anti-jobs. This Minister

says much the same about those of us who express concern about the

unknown health and environmental risks associated with GE. It took

decades

before we discovered the true and horrific cost of asbestos. "

------

Gene Technology (GM Crop Moratorium) Amendment Bill: Second Reading

 

Hansard from the New South Wales (Australia) Legislative Council.

19 November 2004

http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hanstrans.nsf/v3ByKey/LC20041116

 

Debate resumed from 9 November

 

Mr IAN COHEN [2.39 p.m.]: When debate on this bill was adjourned on 9

November I was quoting the Lancet, a highly reputable medical journal.

It reported:

 

" All policymakers must be vigilant to the possibility of research data

being manipulated by corporate bodies and of scientific colleagues

being seduced by the material charms of industry. Trust is no defence

against an aggressively deceptive corporate sector. "

 

The truth is that Monsanto and Bayer have one interest and one interest

only - making as much money from their investments as possible in the

shortest time possible in the interests of their executives, who are on

multimillion-dollar salaries, and their shareholders. Is the Minister

aware of a recent independent scientific report entitled " Genome

Scrambling - Myth or Reality? Transformation - Induced Mutations in

Transgenic

Crop Plants " , written by Alison Wilson, Jonathan Latham and Ricarda

Steinbrecher? The report is based on peer-reviewed scientific literature

and United States of America [uSA] Department of Agriculture documents.

It examines the consequences of genetic modification events for the

integrity of transgenic plant genomes and alarmingly suggests that

significant damage can arise. This is a highly technical issue, but I

hope the

Minister will listen and comment because these findings raise serious

concerns.

 

The researchers found that unknown genetic changes can occur as a

result of genetic modification such as large-scale genetic

rearrangements of

host DNA at transgene insertion sites, resulting in hundreds of

mutations scattered throughout the genome of each new transgenic

plant. Since

the food safety of edible crops relies crucially on genetic stability

and predictability, these findings raise significant concerns about the

safety of GM food crops. Mutations in transgenic cultivars are not

investigated by regulatory authorities so they would not have a clue that

that is happening. The Minister should also be aware of a scientific

study entitled " Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use

in the United States: the First Eight Years " , which was carried out by

Dr Charles Benbrook, Executive Director of the Northwest Science and

Environment Policy Centre and formerly with the National Academy of

Sciences Board on Agriculture. The study was conducted at the request

of the

Union of Concerned Scientists in November 2000.

 

The study draws on official USA Department of Agriculture data on

pesticide use by crop and State to calculate the difference between the

average pounds of pesticide use applied on the 550 million acres

planted to

GM crops compared to the pounds applied to similar conventional crops.

Benbrook looked at levels of pesticides used on GM corn, soya beans and

cotton in America. This was the first comprehensive study of the

impacts of all commercial GM crops on pesticide use in America. The study

found that during the first three years of commercial sales, from 1996 to

1998, GM crops appear to have reduced pesticide use. However, in the

last three years, more than 73 million more pounds, or 33,000 tonnes, of

pesticides were applied on GM acres. Substantial increases in herbicide

use on herbicide-tolerant crops, especially soya beans, accounted for

the increase.

 

The report found that many farmers need to spray incrementally more

herbicide on GM acres in order to keep up with shifts in weeds toward

tougher-to-control species, coupled with the emergence of genetic

resistance in certain weed populations. Criticism has come from

various quarters

about the narrow focus of the risk assessment process that the Office

of the Gene Technology Regulator [OGTR] undertakes on the environmental

and health risks associated with GE food crops. The OGTR does not, for

instance, assess insect resistance or chemical regimes associated with

GM crops. The negative effects of the GE traits to native flora and

fauna also are not investigated.

 

Despite the Minister consistently deferring to the OGTR that all is

well with the technology on the health and environmental front, there are

serious and unanswered questions about the potential for long-term,

irreversible consequences that reputable scientists have raised. In New

South Wales there is the potential for gene transference to indigenous

flora and contamination of this State's genetic resources both inside and

outside national parks. Has the Minister assessed those risks?

 

Proponents of the technology also claim that with new GM varieties they

will be able to farm in more marginal areas. This sends shivers down my

spine. Previously protected areas of native vegetation, because they

were not suitable for agriculture, may now be under threat. It is not a

bright idea to push agriculture into more ecologically marginal areas;

they are under enough threat as it is.

 

Michael Meacher, a concerned British member of Parliament, made the

point on Landline on 7 November 2004 that independent science is not

there

simply to support claims that GM food crops are safe in the environment

and for human consumption. No long-term studies have been done that

show without a doubt that GM food crops are safe. Fundamental questions

about the safety and need for GE food are simply not being asked by this

Government. There is no compelling reason to grow GM food in New South

Wales. The community does not want it, consumers reject it, farmers are

worried about it, and the touted benefits to farmers have not emerged.

Certain markets are responding to what customers really want—clean,

green organic food. Food retailers are not opening up new aisles for

genetically engineered foods, are they? GM ingredients sneaked in.

They are

not labelled so they are introduced to the unsuspecting public by

stealth.

 

The Minister said in his second reading speech that almost one-third of

the increased area grown to GM crops was in developing countries, where

the uptake of GM crops continues to be strong. Has he ever wondered why

that is, and does he question whether it is a good thing? Is it because

the multinationals meet with poorly resourced resistance there and

because they certainly do not have the same regulatory hurdles to jump

through? A recent quote by Wangari Maathai, the 2004 Nobel Peace Prize

winner, sums it up well:

 

" Biotechnology and patenting life forms is the new frontier for

conquest, and Africa ought to be wary because a history of

colonisation and

exploitation is repeating itself. "

 

Many have bought the feed-the-world myth perpetuated by the GM

advocates, but a closer examination reveals that it is a lie. One of

the key

proponents of this myth, and one who has gained global publicity, is

Monsanto-trained Kenyan scientist Dr Florence Wambugu. She claimed

that GM

crops were the key to eradicating poverty and hunger in the Third

World. She told the New Scientist: " In Africa GM food could almost

literally

weed out poverty. "

 

In the Nature journal she claimed that GM food could not only solve

poverty but also take care of famine and environmental degradation.

All of

these claims were built on the Monsanto-created GM sweet potato.

Wambugu claimed in the world's press that yields of the GE sweet potato,

which were trialled in Kenya, were double that of the regular plant, with

potatoes bigger and richer in colour. She went even further to claim

that the GM sweet potato increased yields from four tonnes per hectare to

10 tonnes. All of this was an outright lie. When the results of the

three-year trial were published in January 2004 they showed that, far

from

dramatically out-yielding the non-GM sweet potatoes, the exact opposite

was the case. The report indicated that during the trials

non-transgenic crops used as a control yielded much more tuber

compared to the

transgenic. The GM crop was also found to be susceptible to viral

attack—the

very thing that it had been created to resist.

 

The New Scientist reported the GM sweet potato's failure under the

heading " Monsanto's showcase project in Africa fails " on 7 February

2004. A

successful conventional breeding program in Uganda had produced a new

high-yielding variety, which was virus resistant and raised yields by

roughly 100 per cent. Yet the GM sweet potato was a total flop.

 

How many people still believe the feed-the-world myth? Evidently the

Vatican does. Many Catholic bishops and religious leaders in Africa, Asia

and Latin America strongly opposed the Vatican's endorsement of GM food

crops. Bishop Gutierrez of Marbel in Mindanao campaigned to prevent the

planting of BT corn in the Philippines. He felt that Vatican

endorsement would strengthen the hands of multinationals, which are

browbeating

developing countries into accepting GM foods.

 

Following a massive lobbying exercise by pro-biotech interests to

persuade the Vatican to adopt a pro-GM stance, the question of feeding

the

world with GM food was discussed on 15 October last at the annual

general meeting of the Catholic Institute for International Relations.

Columbian missionary Father Sean McDonagh pointed out that many countries

where poverty is endemic are food exporters. Brazil is the third-largest

exporter of food in the world, yet one-fifth of its population - 32

million - go to bed hungry every night. He added:

 

" GE crops are patented so the Catholic Church, which presents itself as

a pro-life institution, should recoil in horror at the arrogance

involved in patenting life. Like slavery in past centuries there is no

good

patenting regime. It is totally at variance with the Biblical teaching

that life is a gift of God to be shared by all. Christians believe that

God, and not Monsanto, creates life. "

 

One of the key advocates of the feed-the-world myth is Professor C. S.

Prakash, who is Director of the Center for Plant Biotechnology Research

at the Tuskegee Institute in Texas, and a roving GM ambassador for the

US State Department. He lied to members of the Tanzanian press last

summer when he told them that GM " doubles production " , while in the

Philippines he told a press conference the lie that " most genetically

modified crops have longer shelf life " . These lies come packaged with

manufactured smears. Prakash told a press conference in Manila that

Greenpeace

could be getting money for opposing GM crops from " some companies that

think their business operations will be greatly affected by widespread

use of genetically modified crops " . According to the Philippine Star,

" Prakash would not say if pesticide companies are financing the

operations of Greenpeace " Professor Prakash poses as a third-world

scientist

rallying support from fellow academics. He is backed by the Competitive

Enterprise Institute, which is a far-right, industry-supported American

think tank. One only has to glance at its web site to see how extreme

it is. This institute campaigns against environmentalists. It attempts

to debunk global warming, opposes controls on smoking, opposes the Kyoto

Protocol and believes in complete deregulation of GM crops.

 

Professor Prakash accuses critics of genetic engineering variously of

fascism, communism, imperialism, nihilism, murder, corruption,

terrorism, and even genocide - not to mention being worse than Hitler

and on a

par with the mass murderers who destroyed the World Trade Centre.

Professor Prakash has been heavily into dirty tricks campaigns against GM

sceptics, but I will not take the time of the House to detail those here.

 

Talking of deception and untrustworthy scientists, just how do Monsanto

and Bayer deal with their critics or anyone who speaks out? One

alarming example was detailed in an article published by Jeffrey Smith

of the

Institute for Responsible Technology on 1 November 2004 entitled " Are

You Critical of Genetically Engineered Foods? Watch Out. " The article

reports how, Arpad Pusztai, a top pro-biotech scientist who has 12 books

and 300 articles to his credit, discovered that young rats that were

fed a genetically engineered potato developed extensive health problems.

Some had smaller, less developed brains, livers, and testicles, as well

as partial atrophy of the liver. Some suffered damaged immune systems

and organ damage. And there was excessive cell growth in the stomach and

intestines.

 

Arpad accepted an invitation to be interviewed on television and to

express his concerns about GM food. For two days he was a hero at his

institute. Then, on a Tuesday afternoon, two phone calls from the Prime

Minister's office were allegedly forwarded through the institute's

receptionist to the director. On Wednesday morning Arpad was fired

after 35

years, and was silenced with threats of a lawsuit. The 20-member research

team was dismantled and the United Kingdom Government abandoned its

plans for long-term safety study requirements for GM foods. In spite of

his work being cut off in the middle, his rat study remains the most

in-depth animal feeding safety study ever published on GM foods.

Tragically, no similar studies have yet been applied to the GM foods

on the

market and no-one is monitoring to see if the organs, immune system, and

cells of humans who eat GM foods are being similarly influenced.

 

At the 2001 New Zealand's Royal Commission of Inquiry on Genetic

Modification epidemiologist Judy Carman testified that the few animal

feeding

studies on GM foods are too short to adequately test for cancer or for

problems in the offspring, and are not evaluating " biochemistry,

immunology, tissue pathology, gut function, liver function and kidney

function " . Carman, who has investigated outbreaks of disease, said

that health

problems associated with GM foods might be impossible to track in the

human population or take decades to discover. Carman is repeatedly

attacked for her critical stance. One pro-GM scientist threatened

disciplinary action through her vice-chancellor.

 

Geneticist Michael Antoniou, who works on human gene therapy, told the

New Zealand commission:

 

" Genetic engineering technology, as it's being applied in agriculture

now, is based on the understanding of genetics we had 15 years ago,

about genes being isolated little units that work independently of each

other. "

 

He explained that genes " work as an integrated whole of families " In

2003, Antoniou represented non-governmental organizations on the UK's

supposedly balanced GM science review panel, which was part of the

nationwide " GM Nation? " public debate. He was shocked to find

scientists there

still supporting obsolete theories of gene independence, even claiming

that the order of genes in the DNA was entirely relevant. But Antoniou

was outnumbered by 11 scientists representing either the biotech

industry or appointed by the pro-biotech UK Government. His

well-supported

arguments fell on deaf ears. Since the debate new studies have further

verified Antoniou's position by showing that genes are not randomly

located along the DNA but clustered into groups with related functions.

 

Virologist Terje Traavik testified that GM crops " might be the basis

for real ecological and health catastrophes " . Three years later, in a

February 2004 meeting with delegates to the UN biosafety protocol

conference, Traavik presented preliminary evidence from three studies

that

might fulfil his earlier prediction. Filipinos living next to a GM

cornfield developed serious symptoms while corn was pollinating.

Promoters'

genetic material routinely inserted into GM crops were found to transfer

to rat organs after a single transgenic meal, and key safety assumptions

about genetically engineered viruses were overturned, calling into

question the safety of using these viruses as vaccines. Traavik,

naturally,

was attacked. Biologist Phil Regal told

the commission:

 

" I think the people who boost genetic engineering are going to have to

do a mea culpa and ask for forgiveness, like the Pope did on the

inquisition; you know, 'we made a mistake, let's start over.' "

 

Those who express concern at GE food are invariably attacked by vested

interests and labelled Luddites—along with many other epithets. They

are accused of retarding the growth and progress of the agricultural

sector. Imagine if you will the Minister standing in this Chamber 40

years

ago strongly defending James Hardie's right to mine asbestos and to

build fibro homes all over New South Wales. Imagine him saying that James

Hardie was providing much-needed jobs for workers and building cheap

and affordable homes for lower-paid people. Imagine him saying further,

" Fibro-using asbestos is a breakthrough technology and you greenies are

just Luddites in opposing the use of asbestos. " The Minister would have

accused us of being anti-business and anti-jobs. This Minister says

much the same about those of us who express concern about the unknown

health and environmental risks associated with GE. It took decades before

we discovered the true and horrific cost of asbestos. The same may well

become true of GE foods. It may already be too late for many in the

United States who have been unknowingly eating GE food, as it is now too

late for so many thousands of people in Australia who are developing

mesothelioma.

 

The Government is now trying to force James Hardie to pay compensation

to thousands of workers who are dying from its products. James Hardie

has moved offshore and is essentially out of reach of the Government.

Monsanto and Bayer are also offshore. If in 30 or 40 years time a

subsequent Labor or Liberal government needs to pursue Monsanto or

Bayer for

millions in compensation will it be able to? Will Monsanto indeed still

be there? Monsanto is struggling to stay afloat. After huge losses last

year Monsanto last month announced a net loss of $56 million for the

fourth quarter, causing a 3.2 per cent single-day drop in its share

price. It is losing two-thirds of its market share of glyphosate to

cheaper

Chinese generics. It is desperately trying to lock farmers in to using

only Roundup formulations with its GE contracts in an attempt to hold

on to market share, and it needs the Minister's help to do it.

 

James Hardie, which is having to pay billions in compensation and whose

products are the subject of boycotts all over Australia, has hitherto

been regarded as a respectable Australian company. The same cannot be

said of either Monsanto or Bayer, both of which have very murky pasts. As

honourable members would know, Monsanto is the manufacturer of Agent

Orange, the defoliant used to destroy the forests of Vietnam, and which

has caused and still is causing untold suffering to millions of

Vietnamese and Americans. It is also the producer of DDT, so well

documented in

Rachel Carson's 1962 groundbreaking book Silent Spring. The company

manufactured polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, which have caused birth

defects all over the globe as well as cancers and multiple other health

problems. According to a Japanese study, thanks to Monsanto, PCBs are

now found in every fish caught in the Pacific Ocean.

 

And what of that venerable company Bayer? Go to the Bayer web site and

you will find mention of the Fritz ter Meer Foundation, set up by Bayer

in 1964. What the company does not tell you is that Fritz ter Meer was

gaoled for war crimes for directing IG Farben's horrendous experiments

at Auschwitz. He supervised Dr Josef Mengele's scientific drug

experiments on Holocaust victims. It does not mention that Fritz ter Meer

supplied the Zyklon B gas that killed millions of Jews. These are the

companies whose interests you are protecting, Minister. These are the

companies for whom you have made this amendment so that those who have

legitimate concerns about the risks of GE foods will be silenced.

 

If you make a mockery of the moratorium by allowing huge so-called

coexistence trials, as these companies are demanding, you will be opening

the floodgates, and there will be no turning back. Next will be GE

grapes, GE pineapples, GE pawpaw, GE sugar and so on. They are all

waiting

in the wings. Huge chunks of Australian agriculture will be effectively

controlled by giant overseas corporations, turning Australian farmers

into mere bioserfs. The Minister must listen to the farmers. He must

ensure that the companies carry the whole cost of liability, and not the

farmers. Better still, do not let the genie out of the bottle. He has it

in his hands to prevent a James Hardie style disaster. So much depends

on his integrity. Do not blow it, Minister. It is interesting to speak

in the House and not be listened to at all.

 

It is high time the Government supported the real revolution in food

and farming that meets the needs of local communities and farmers,

protects the environment and is what people want: that is, biological

farming

methods and organic food. There is a fast-growing global market for

genuine clean green food that people know is safe. They do not want to be

forced to eat GE food against their will. The Minister should not be

supporting people who are trying to overturn millions of years of

evolution with totally unknown consequences. We know that there are

markets

for GE-free produce. We should be supporting producers of those foods,

not multinational companies with appalling histories. The Greens oppose

the Gene Technology (GM Crop Moratorium) Amendment Bill.

 

 

 

---------------------