A few questions you need to ask yourselves about GMOs:
In September 2012, Professor Séralini presented
his study on GMOs. He tested in secret during two years the effects of GMOs on
rats. The result was unbelievable; many of these rats contracted diseases as a
result of feeding on GMO maze… What
do you think of this study ? Should we
worry about GMOs ?
What are the risks for the environment of GMOs ? Is there any
possibility of cross-pollination with non-GMO crops ?
What are the effects for the health of humans and animals ?
Monsanto has the monopoly on GMOs. Every year farmers have to buy new
seeds from this TNC. What are the consequences on farmers' lives ?
Arguments for the use of GMOs:
Better resistance to stress
If crops can be made more resistant to pest
outbreaks, it would reduce the danger of crop failure. Similar benefits could
result from better resistance to severe weather, such as frost, extreme heat or
drought.
More nutritious staple
foods
By inserting genes into crops such as rice and wheat, we can increase their food
value. For example, genes responsible for producing the precursor of vitamin A have
been inserted into rice plants, which have higher levels of vitamin A in their
grain.
More productive farm animals
Genes can be inserted into cattle to raise their milk yield.
More food from less land
Improved productivity using GMOs might mean that farmers in the next
century won't have to bring so much marginal land into cultivation.
GMOs might reduce the environmental impact of food production and
industrial processes
Genetically engineered resistance to pests and diseases could greatly
reduce the chemicals needed for crop protection, and it is already happening.
Scientists are developing trees that have a lower content of lignin, a
structuring constituent of woody plant cells. This could reduce the need for noxious chemicals in pulp and paper production.
Rehabilitation of damaged or less fertile land
Large areas of cropland in the developing world have become saline by
unsustainable irrigation practices. Genetic modification could produce
salt-tolerant varieties. While there is some advanced research in this area,
salt and drought tolerance are the result of quite complex gene combinations,
and positive results will take longer than those providing insecticide and
herbicide resistance.
Bioremediation
Rehabilitation of damaged land may also become possible through
organisms bred to restore nutrients and soil structure.
Longer shelf lives
The genetic modification of fruit and vegetables can make them less
likely to spoil in storage or on the way to market.
Biofuels
Plant material fuel, or biomass, has enormous energy potential. It may
be possible to breed plants specifically for this purpose.
Investigation of diseases with genetic fingerprinting
"Fingerprinting" of animal and plant diseases is already
possible. This technique allows researchers to know exactly what an organism is
by looking at its genetic blueprint.
Identification of allergenic genes
Although some are worried about the transfer of allergenic genes
molecular biology could also be used to characterize allergens and remove them.
Arguments against the use of GMOs:
The taste of GMOs is not as good or as "natural" as real food
Harm to other organisms
Genes included in a crop may turn out to be poisonous to insects (for
example, the monarch butterfly poisoned by GMO maze).
Cross-pollination with ordinary (crop) plants
Cross pollination can occur at quite large distances. New genes may also
be included in the offspring of the traditional, organic crops miles away. This
makes it difficult to distinguish which crop field is organic, and which is
not, creating a problem to the proper labelling of non-GMO food products. Super
weeds which are more resistant can be spread everywhere. It can be the same for
super pests.
Health problems
Cancers may be caused by GMOs but also allergies.
Only major trading countries obtain most of the benefit from the
production and trade of genetically modified crops
This might cause more geopolitical conflicts.
Monopolies by TNCs
Fewer competitors might
increase food prices. Large companies can influence health and safety
standards.
Here is a summary of the personal
views in favour of GMOs expressed by Mr Villemont, an agro engineer:
- The world population is increasing; it will soon reach nine billion. So if everyone is to have enough to eat, it is necessary to produce more meat and crops.
- You cannot deny people in developing countries wanting to eat more meat!
- We have to increase yield to keep the peace in the world and transgenic plants are the solution.
- Farmers and the GMO industry have to comply with regulations to increase biodiversity!
- So-called alternative agricultural techniques will not solve the problem of possible wide-scale famine.
- GMOs help reduce the use of chemicals.
- The Séralini research on rats is simply not reliable.
Here is a summary of the views
against the use of GMOs expressed by Mr Birson, a member of an environmental
protection association:
- Transgenic plants are not the solution to feeding the world. There are alternatives. Terra Preta
- (http://www.terrapretaprogram.org/our_program.aspx) is one solution. With this method, yield is very high and it does not pollute the environment.
- The film by Coline Serrault (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsbXnTlCwHc) shows the disastrous effects of GMOs very well, and it also shows initiatives by farmers in India to find alternatives that increase biodiversity.
- Eating so much meat is not necessary (it is bad for health and the environment as more land is needed to produce meat than to produce cereals).
- Monsanto has the monopoly on genetically modified seed and this is not good. The urgency of feeding a growing population means that GMO products are being used though proper long-term research has not been carried out.
- Globalisation is a big mistake. There is competition between countries which leads to absurdities like Spanish tomatoes being sold in Holland and Dutch tomatoes being sold in Spain.
- If a farmer has less than 10 hectares of land, he can’t get any subsidies in Europe, so States are encouraging large-scale producers (who choose to use GMOs).
Article by Anastasie
Paradis, Zélie Pironin, Alexandre Tabone & Lauriane Chadrin
Au lieu de donner tellement d´espace à la "troupe Séralini" ils serait mieux de faire savoir aux lecteurs que "l'étude choc" était bidon, qu'il n'était absolument pas la première de longue durée et qu'il ne vaut rien. La cause verte est peut-être juste mais l'aide de ce bouffon de Séralini est complètement dispensable.
ReplyDelete