GMO Research for PF

Topic Analysis

Defining GMOs
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/897705/genetically-modified-organism-GMO

Genetically modified organism (GMO), organism whose genome has been

engineered in the laboratory in order to favour the expression of desired
physiological traits or the production of desired biological products. In
conventional livestock production, crop farming, and even pet breeding, it
has long been the practice to breed select individuals of a species in order to
produce offspring that have desirable traits. In genetic modification,
however, recombinant genetic technologies are employed to produce
organisms whose genomes have been precisely altered at the molecular
level, usually by the inclusion of genes from unrelated species of organisms
that code for traits that would not be obtained easily through conventional
selective breeding.
GMOs are produced using scientific methods that include recombinant DNA
technology and reproductive cloning. Reproductive cloning technology
generates offspring that are genetically identical to the parent by the transfer
of an entire donor nucleus into the enucleated cytoplasm of a host egg. The
first animal produced using this cloning technique was a sheep named Dolly,
born in 1996. Since then a number of other animals, including pigs, horses,
and dogs, have been generated using reproductive cloning technology.
Recombinant DNA technology, on the other hand, involves the insertion of
one or more individual genes from an organism of one species into the DNA
(deoxyribonucleic acid) of another. Whole-genome replacement, involving
the transplantation of one bacterial genome into the cell body, or
cytoplasm, of another microorganism, has been reported, although this
technology is still limited to basic scientific applications.
GMOs produced through genetic technologies have become a part of
everyday life, entering into society through agriculture, medicine, research,
and environmental management. However, while GMOs have benefited
human society in many ways, some disadvantages exist; therefore, the
production of GMOs remains a highly controversial topic in many parts of
the world.

GMOs in agriculture
Genetically modified (GM) foods were first approved for human
consumption in the United States in 1995, and by 1999 almost 50 percent of
the corn, cotton, and soybeans planted in the United States were GM. By the

end of 2010, GM crops covered more than 9.8 million square kilometres (3.8
million square miles) of land in 29 countries worldwideone-tenth of the
worlds farmland.
Engineered crops can dramatically increase per area crop yields and, in some
cases, reduce the use of chemical insecticides. For example, the application
of wide-spectrum insecticides declined in many areas growing plants, such
as potatoes, cotton, and corn, that were endowed with a gene from the
bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, which produces a natural insecticide called
Bt toxin. Field studies conducted in India in which Bt cotton was compared
with non-Bt cotton demonstrated a 3080 percent increase in yield from the
GM crop. This increase was attributed to marked improvement in the GM
plants ability to overcome bollworm infestation, which was otherwise
common. Studies of Bt cotton production in Arizona, U.S., demonstrated
only small gains in yieldabout 5 percentwith an estimated cost
reduction of $2565 (USD) per acre due to decreased pesticide applications.
In China, a seven-year study of farms planting Bt cotton demonstrated initial
success of the GM crop, with farmers who had planted Bt cotton reducing
their pesticide use by 70 percent and increasing their earnings by 36 percent.
However, after four years, the benefits of Bt cotton eroded as populations of
insect pests other than bollworm increased, and farmers once again were
forced to spray broad-spectrum pesticides. While the problem was not Btresistant bollworms, as had been feared initially, it nonetheless became clear
that much more research was needed for communities to realize sustainable
and environmentally responsible benefits from planting GM crops.
Other GM plants were engineered for resistance to a specific chemical
herbicide, rather than resistance to a natural predator or pest. Herbicideresistant crops (HRC) have been available since the mid-1980s; these crops
enable effective chemical control of weeds, since only the HRC plants can
survive in fields treated with the corresponding herbicide. However, because
these crops encourage increased application of chemicals to the soil, rather
than decreased application, they remain controversial with regard to their
environmental impact.
By 2002 more than 60 percent of processed foods consumed in the United
States contained at least some GM ingredients. Despite the concerns of some
consumer groups, especially in Europe, numerous scientific panels,
including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, have concluded that
consumption of GM foods is safe, even in cases involving GM foods with
genetic material from very distantly related organisms. Indeed, foods
containing GM ingredients do not require special labeling in the United

States, although some groups have continued to lobby to change this ruling.
By 2006, although the majority of GM crops were still grown in the
Americas, GM plants tailored for production and consumption in other parts
of the world were in field tests. For example, sweet potatoes intended for
Africa were modified for resistance to sweet potato feathery mottle virus
(SPFMV) by inserting into the sweet potato genome a gene encoding a viral
coat protein from the strain of virus that causes SPFMV. The premise for
this modification was based on earlier studies in other plants such as tobacco
in which introduction of viral coat proteins rendered plants resistant to the
virus.
The so-called golden rice intended for Asia was genetically modified to
produce almost 20 times the beta-carotene of previous varieties. Golden rice
was created by modifying the rice genome to include a gene from the
daffodil Narcissus pseudonarcissus that produces an enzyme known as
phyotene synthase and a gene from the bacterium Erwinia uredovora that
produces an enzyme called phyotene desaturase. The introduction of these
genes enabled beta-carotene, which is converted to vitamin A in the human
liver, to accumulate in the rice endospermthe edible part of the rice
plantthereby increasing the amount of beta-carotene available for vitamin
A synthesis in the body.
Another form of modified rice was generated to help combat iron deficiency,
which impacts close to 30 percent of the world population. This GM crop
was engineered by introducing into the rice genome a ferritin gene from the
common bean, Phaseolus vulgaris, that produces a protein capable of
binding iron, as well as a gene from the fungus Aspergillus fumigatus that
produces an enzyme capable of digesting compounds that increase iron
bioavailability via digestion of phytate (an inhibitor of iron absorption). The
iron-fortified GM rice was engineered to overexpress an existing rice gene
that produces a cysteine-rich metallothioneinlike (metal-binding) protein that
enhances iron absorption.
A variety of other crops modified to endure the weather extremes common
in other parts of the globe are also in production.

Other countries have adopted GMOs

Sankula 06 Quantification of the Impacts on US Agriculture of Biotechnology-Derived Crops Planted in 2005 November 2006
Sujatha Sankula Ph.D National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy http://www.ncfap.org/documents/2005biotechimpactsfinalversion.pdf

Approximately 8.5 million farmers from 21 different countries

planted biotechnology-derived crops in 2005 (James 2006). The 21
countries are Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China,
Columbia, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Honduras, India,
Iran, Mexico, Paraguay, Philippines, Portugal, Romania, South
Africa, Spain, United States, and Uruguay. Four countries, Czech
Republic, France, Iran, and Portugal, planted these crops for the
first time in 2005. Also, it is remarkable to note that 9 of the
above-listed 21 nations are developing countries.
The 2005-planted acreage of 222 million acres represented an 11%
rise in adoption compared to 2004 (200 million acres) (James
2005; James 2006). Additionally, the year 2005 witnessed 24%
increase in the number of countries that planted these crops (17
countries in 2004 versus 21 countries in 2005).
The United States continued to lead the world in the adoption of
biotechnology- derived crops in 2005 with about 123 million acres
or 55% of the total global planted area. Planted acreage in 2005
was mainly concentrated in three commercialized applications
(virus-resistance, herbicide-resistance, and insect-resistance or Bt)
and eight crops (alfalfa, canola, corn, cotton, papaya, soybean,
squash, and sweet corn). Approximately 93, 52, 79, 55, 88, and
12% of the total acreage of canola, corn, cotton, papaya, soybean
and squash, respectively, was planted to biotechnology-derived
varieties in the United States in 2005. Biotechnology-derived
alfalfa and sweet corn were planted on a very minor acreage (<1%)
in 2005.

Affirmative

GMOs solve poverty

Studies prove- GMOs increase crop yields, improve soil quality, and increase
quality of life for poor farmers.
Love and Spaner 06 Improvement of the agricultural sustainability and livelihoods of poor farmers through
biotechnology: reality or speculation? 1Brian Love is a Ph.D. student in plant science at the University of Alberta in the Department
of Agricultural, Food, and Nutritional Sciences, 4-10 Ag/For Building Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, T6G 2P5.
(brianl@ualberta.ca).2Dean Spaner is an Associate Professor at the University of Alberta in the Department of Agricultural, Food,
and Nutritional Science, 4-10 Ag/For Building Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, T6G 2P5. Corresponding Author,
(dean.spanner@ualberta.ca). 2006. http://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/bitstream/10625/42164/1/129684.pdf

Biological nitrogen fixation occurs when microbes in symbiosis with plants assimilate
atmospheric nitrogen and make it available to plants (Hirsch et al., 2001). Mycorrhizae are fungi that that
increase plant nutrient uptake through root associations (Sanchez and Salinas, 1981). Different forms/strains of microbes occur
naturally and may be specific to certain plant species (Boonkerd, 2002). Selection of optimal microbial strains in the lab can help
develop efficient nitrogen fixation (Sanchez and Salinas, 1981) and mycorrhizae (Rengel, 2002) technologies.
Microbe inoculation of plants is thousands of years old (Dart, 1990a). Cover

crops that fix nitrogen can re-establish

fertility in low-input agriculture (Sanchez and Benites, 1987) and improve the productivity of poor
farmers (Bunch, 1985), but poor farmers adoption of cover crops is hindered by insecure land tenure (Honlonkou et al., 1999). In
Thailand, soybean inoculation can increase net profits by US $144 ha-1 (Boonkerd, 2002). Azolla (water
fern)- Anabaena (blue-green-algae, planktonic cyanobacteria) nitrogen fixing association increases paddy rice
yields: China (24%), Egypt (26%), India (9-11%) and is a high protein livestock feed (Bifani, 1992).
Mycorrhizae can improve poor farmers yields and permit continuous cultivation of poor soils
(Salami and Osonubi, 2002), but their contribution to yield has not been adequately quantified (Ryan and Graham, 2002).

The low transport costs and simplicity of inoculants make them appropriate for developing
countries (Bifani, 1992), however poor transportation infrastructure can limit use (Odame, 1997). Inoculants generate
employment by increasing labour demand (Bifani, 1992). Nitrogen fixing bacteria vary in their tolerance to soil properties such as soil
pH (Date and Halliday, 1979) and in some cases inoculant biotechnology has not been able to overcome the extreme soil conditions
(high temperature, acidity, salinity, and drought) of poor farmers (Odame, 1997). Genetic

engineering of nitrogen
fixing bacteria may help address these constraints and has increased yields by 5-10% in China
(Chen and Gu, 1993).

Benefits of GMOs go directly to the people- empirics prove.

Qaim 09 The Economics of Genetically Modified Crops Matin Qaim Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural
Development, Georg-August-University of Goettingen, 37073 Goettingen, Germany; email: mqaim@uni-goettingen.de 2009 by
Annual Reviews

Whenever new crop technologies are adopted on a large scale, the productivity increase will
cause the crops supply curve to shift downward, leading to a change in producer and
consumer surplus (Alston et al. 1995). Because most GM technologies currently available have been
commercialized by the private sector, technology rents accrued by innovating companies need
to be considered (Moschini & Lapan 1997).
Price et al. (2003) estimated that in the late 1990s Bt cotton generated a total annual economic surplus gain of approximately $164
million in the United States, of which 37% was captured by farmers, 18% by consumers, and 45% by the innovating companies.
Falck-Zepeda et al. (2000b) also reported similar results. Because Bt cotton adoption in the United States has increased since then,
absolute surplus gains are higher today, but relative surplus distribution remains approximately the same (Fernandez-Cornejo &
Caswell 2006).

For Bt cotton in China, Pray et al. (2001) estimated economic surplus gains of approxi- mately
$140 million in 1999, with only 1.5% going to the innovating companies and the rest captured
by farmers. IPR protection in China is weak, and use of farm-saved Bt cottonseeds is
widespread. Under these conditions, it is difficult for companies to capture innovation rents. Cotton
consumers did not benefit in 1999 because the government controlled output markets, thus preventing a price decrease.

Recently, markets have been liberalized, so Chinese consumers now benefit from Bt cotton

technology. In India, Bt cotton surplus gains were projected at $315 million for 2005 (Qaim 2003). Because cotton prices
there are not fully liberalized, consumer benefits were not considered. Farmers capture two thirds of the overall
surplus gains; the rest accrues to biotech and seed companies. Bt cotton in India is commercialized in
hybrids, so use of farm-saved seeds is low. Thus, the private sector innovation rent is higher than in China.

GMOs address some of the root causes of poverty.

Morton 2K Response to GM Food Myths AgBioWorldBy Roger Morton, [CSIRO biotechnician- Commonwealth Science and
Industrial Research Organization] with contributions by Rick Roush and Wayne Parrott14 December 2000 - Updated 13 July 2001
http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/agbio-articles/myths.html

People are hungry because they cannot grow enough food to feed themselves locally. This
is for a variety of reasons. For example insects devastate their crops and they cannot afford
insecticides to protect the crops.
No.

If they were to grow a GM Bt crop then they would get insecticide for free and be able to produce more food. In this way can GM
food help feed the poor.

Another reason is losses during storage of the grains due to insect attack or rotting of the food
in storage. This is because the poor cannot afford the expensive silos and treatments required
to reduce losses of this nature. If the crops were GM they could be made to resist insect
damage and spoilage. In this way GM food can help feed the poor.
Another reason is losses of food due to disease - poor farmers (and many wealthy ones) cannot
afford to spray fungicides on their crops. If crops were made resistant to diseases by GM then
they could produce more food locally. In this way GM food can help feed the poor.
There may be just enough food on the planet at the moment to feed everyone if it was distributed better. However, it isn't

As indicated above GM crops could help with the food distribution

problem by allowing the poor to produce more food. GM crops can provide a method for selfhelp to the poor. This may be more likely to succeed as a method of helping them rather than
waiting until they are no longer poor.
distributed better because of poverty.

Warming- probably dont use

A. Genetically modified farm crops slow global warming.
Wimmer 05 Can Biotechnology Help Slow Global Warming? Sheridan Wimmer Kansas State University [Program Assistant at
Kansas Foundation for Agriculture in the Classroom Education: Kansas State University, Deakin University June 5th, 2005.
These kinds of inventions are paving the way to make biotechnology \ a plausible choice to help slow down global warming. An

farmers could use g m plants that are

already being used to help slow global warming, such as plants designed to withstand wind,
therefore sequester more carbon into soils. Corn that is engineered to grow thicker, woodier
stalks uses more carbon so it can make all the woody lignin and cellulose that makes them
thicker and stiffer. Those two elements are slow to decompose in soil, so the more biomass
that is produced, the more carbon that is put into the soil. Scientists say that they are finding
new ways of farming rice so that it can curb global warming as well as produce higher yields.
agronomy professor from Kansas State University, Charles Rice, says that

enetically

odified

Fields of rice are among the worlds highest producers of methane, about 10 percent of global emissions.

B. Optimizing rice production can reduce global greenhouse gases while

increasing yields.
Black 02 Richard Black BBC science correspondent Monday, 19 August, 2002, 22:09 GMT 23:09 UK Better rice, less global
warming http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2203578.stm

Rice plants which produce higher yields make less of the potent greenhouse gas methane,
researchers have discovered.
Plants which use the carbon they absorb from the atmosphere efficiently put less carbon into
the soil, where it can be converted into methane.
Methane is the second most important greenhouse gas, responsible for about 20% of global
warming.
The scientists say their findings could lead to new ways of growing rice which will curb global warming as
well as producing higher yields.
Plant pollution

Paddy fields full of rice are among the world's biggest producers of methane, contributing
around 10% of global emissions.
Methane, a compound of carbon and hydrogen, is produced by bacteria in the soil.
Some of the carbon enters the soil from the roots of the rice plants, which in turn take it from the atmosphere through
photosynthesis.
Now

scientists

from Wageningen University in the Netherlands, the Fraunhofer Institute in Germany and the International Rice

have discovered that plants which channel carbon into making

flowers and grain put less of it into the soil.
In experiments inside greenhouses, they found that the crucial factor is the number of
spikelets which a plant makes.
A spikelet is a structure which holds a number of flowers and, later, grain.
Writing in the journal The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, they say their discovery "provides
opportunities to mitigate methane emissions by optimising rice productivity".
Research Institute in the Philippines

A2: GMOs cause health probs

The Seralini study is flawed- reject it.
Bachman 13 Genetically Modified Corn Didn't Cause Rat Cancer By Justin Bachman December 02, 2013
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-12-02/genetically-modified-corn-didnt-cause-rat-cancer

Opponents of genetically modified foods just lost a major scientific datapoint for their
position after a journal retracted a French study linking altered corn to tumors in rats.
The widely publicized study, published in September 2012 by Food & Chemical Toxicology, had attracted criticism as scientifically
flawed even before its retraction late last week. The

two-year study by Gilles-Eric Seralini of the University

of Caen used only 10 rats for the researchand the species studied is known to develop
tumors regardless of its diet.
A more in-depth look at the raw data revealed that no definitive conclusions can be reached
with this small sample size regarding the role of either NK603 or glyphosate in regards to
overall mortality or tumor incidence, said Elsevier, the Dutch company that publishes Food & Chemical Toxicology.
in a statement. Given the known high incidence of tumors in the Sprague-Dawley rat, normal
variability cannot be excluded as the cause of the higher mortality and incidence observed in
the treated groups.

Scientific organizations agree- GMOs dont have health risks.

Ronald 11 Genetically Engineered CropsWhat, How and Why; Scientific American By Pamela Ronald | August 11, 2011
[Pamela Ronald is a Professor at the University of California, Davis where she studies how genes affect the plants response to
environmental stress and disease. She is co-author of Tomorrows Table: Organic Farming, Genetics and the Future of Food]
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/08/11/genetically-engineered-crops/

There is broad scientic consensus that genetically engineered crops currently on the market
are safe to eat. After 14 years of cultivation and a cumulative total of 2 billion acres planted,
no adverse health or environmental effects have resulted from commercialization of
genetically engineered crops (Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources, Committee on Environmental Impacts
Associated with Commercialization of Transgenic Plants, National Research Council and Division on Earth and Life Studies 2002).

Both the U.S. National Research Council and the Joint Research Centre (the European Unions scientic
and technical research laboratory and an integral part of the European Commission) have concluded that there is a
comprehensive body of knowledge that adequately addresses the food safety issue of
genetically engineered crops (Committee on Identifying and Assessing Unintended Effects of Genetically Engineered
Foods on Human Health and National Research Council 2004; European Commission Joint Research Centre 2008).

A2: Environmental risks

GMOs are GREAT for the environment they reduce carbon emissions, pesticide
usage, and biodiversity loss.
ISAAA 13 International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications Pocket K No. 4: GM Crops and the Environment
Updated August 2013 http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/pocketk/4/

One of the significant environmental benefits of GM crops is the dramatic reduction in

pesticide use, with the size of the reduction varying between crops and introduced trait.
A study assessing the global economic and environmental impacts of biotech crops for the first seventeen years (1996-2012) of
adoption showed that the technology has reduced pesticide spraying by 503 million kg and has
reduced environmental footprint associated with pesticide use by 18.7%. The technology has
also significantly reduced the release of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture equivalent
to removing 11.9 million cars from the roads.2
In the USA, adoption of GM crops resulted in pesticide use reduction of 46.4 million pounds in
2003.3
The use of Bt cotton in China resulted in pesticide use reduction of 78,000 tons of formulated
pesticides in 2001. This corresponds to about a quarter of all the pesticides sprayed in China in the mid-1990s.4 Additionally,
the use of Bt cotton can substantially reduce the risk and incidence of pesticide poisonings to
farmers.5
The quantity of insecticides used to control bollworm reduced by 96% from 5748 metric tons
of active ingredients in 2001 to as low as 222 metric tons of active ingredients in 2011.
Herbicide tolerant crops have facilitated the continued expansion of conservation tillage, especially no-till cultivation system, in the
USA. The

adoption of conservation and no-till cultivation practices saved nearly 1 billion tons of
soil per year.6
Biotech cotton has been documented to have a positive effect on the number and diversity of
beneficial insects in the US and Australian cotton fields.7
Adoption of Bt corn in the Philippines did not show an indication that Bt corn had negative effect on insect abundance and
15
diversity.

A2: Superweeds and superbugs: GMO scientists will just engineer new seeds.
They make new seeds every year anyway and research and development
doesnt really ever stop, so its just a job agribusinesses will have high demand
for evolution is a process that goes on forever, so theyre always in a battle to
innovate and beat the bugs.
A2: spreads GM bits to other crops
Borel 14 Core Truths: 10 Common GMO Claims Debunked Genetically modified organisms have become the worlds most
controversial food. But the science is more clear-cut. By Brooke Borel Posted 07.11.201
http://www.popsci.com/article/science/core-truths-10-common-gmo-claims-debunked
The first part could certainly be true: Plants swap genetic
plant DNAincluding any genetically engineered snippets.

material all the time by way of pollen, which carries

According to Wayne Parrott, a crop geneticist at the University of Georgia, the

risk for neighboring farms is

relatively low. For starters, it's possible to reduce the chance of cross-pollination by staggering
planting schedules, so that fields pollinate during different windows of time. (Farmers with
adjacent GMO and organic fields already do this.) And if some GMO pollen does blow into an
organic field, it won't necessarily nullify organic status. Even foods that bear the Non-GMO
Project label can be 0.5 percent GMO by dry weight.

As for a GMO infiltrating wild plants, the offspring's survival partly depends on whether the
trait provides an adaptive edge. Genes that help wild plants survive might spread, whereas
those that, say, boost vitamin A content might remain at low levels or fizzle out entirely.

A2: Rice increases warming. It doesnt- even your author concedes certain types
of GM rice can slow global warming.
Trinity College Dublin 12. "Rice agriculture accelerates global warming: More greenhouse gas per grain of rice."
ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 21 October 2012. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121021154455.htm>.

there are several options available to reduce CH4 emissions from

rice agriculture. For instance, management practices such as mid-season drainage and using
alternative fertilizers have been shown to reduce CH4 emissions from rice paddies. Moreover,
by switching to more heat tolerant rice cultivars and by adjusting sowing dates, yield declines
due to temperature increases can largely be prevented, thereby reducing the effect of
warming on CH4 emissions per yield. "These findings, together with our own results really stress the need for
However, the authors point out that

mitigation and adaptation measures to secure global food supply while at the same time keeping greenhouse gas emissions in
check." van Groenigen concluded.

Organics bad
Turn Organics can hurt the environment more
Wilcox 11 (Christie, Scientific American, July 18 Mythbusting 101: Organic Farming > Conventional
Agriculture. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/07/18/mythbusting-101-organicfarming-conventional-agriculture/

Not only are organic pesticides not safe, they might actually be worse than the ones used by
the conventional agriculture industry. Canadian scientists pitted reduced-risk organic and
synthetic pesticides against each other in controlling a problematic pest, the soybean aphid.
They found that not only were the synthetic pesticides more effective means of control, the
organic pesticides were more ecologically damaging, including causing higher mortality in
other, non-target species like the aphids predators9. Of course, some organic pesticides may fare better than
these ones did in similar head-to-head tests, but studies

like this one reveal that the assumption that

natural is better for the environment could be very dangerous.

Organic farming relies heavily on pesticides that can actually cause health risksempirics prove.
Wilcox 2011 (Christie, Scientific American, July 18 Mythbusting 101: Organic Farming > Conventional
Agriculture. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/07/18/mythbusting-101-organicfarming-conventional-agriculture/
When the Soil Association, a major organic accreditation body in the UK, asked consumers why they buy

organic food,
95% of them said their top reason was to avoid pesticides. They, like many people, believe that
organic farming involves little to no pesticide use. I hate to burst the bubble, but thats simply not
true. Organic farming, just like other forms of agriculture, still uses pesticides and fungicides
to prevent critters from destroying their crops. Confused?
So was I, when I first learned this from a guy I was dating. His family owns a farm in rural Ohio. He was grumbling about how
everyone praised the local organic farms for being so environmentally-conscientious, even though they sprayed their crops with
pesticides all the time while his family farm got no credit for being pesticide-free (theyre not organic because they use a nonorganic herbicide once a year). I didnt believe him at first, so I looked into it: turns out that there

are over 20 chemicals

commonly used in the growing and processing of organic crops that are approved by the US
Organic Standards. And, shockingly, the actual volume usage of pesticides on organic farms is not
recorded by the government. Why the government isnt keeping watch on organic pesticide and fungicide use is a damn
good question, especially considering that many organic pesticides that are also used by conventional farmers are used more
intensively than synthetic ones due to their lower levels of effectiveness. According

to the National Center for Food

and Agricultural Policy, the top two organic fungicides, copper and sulfur, were used at a rate
of 4 and 34 pounds per acre in 1971 1. In contrast, the synthetic fungicides only required a
rate of 1.6 lbs per acre, less than half the amount of the organic alternatives.
The sad truth is, factory farming is factory farming, whether its organic or conventional. Many large organic farms use pesticides
liberally. Theyre organic by certification, but youd never know it if you saw their farming practices. As Michael Pollan, best-selling
book author and organic supporter, said in an interview with Organic Gardening,
Theyre organic by the letter, not organic in spirit if most organic consumers went to those places, they would feel they were
getting ripped off.
What makes organic farming different, then? Its not the use of pesticides, its the origin of the pesticides used. Organic

pesticides are those that are derived from natural sources and processed lightly if at all before
use. This is different than the current pesticides used by conventional agriculture, which are
generally synthetic. It has been assumed for years that pesticides that occur naturally (in certain plants, for example) are

somehow better for us and the environment than those that have been created by man. As more research is done into their toxicity,
however, this simply isnt true, either. Many

natural pesticides have been found to be potential or

serious health risks.2

Take the example of Rotenone. Rotenone

was widely used in the US as an organic pesticide for

decades 3. Because it is natural in origin, occurring in the roots and stems of a small number of subtropical plants, it was
considered safe as well as organic. However, research has shown that rotenone is highly
dangerous because it kills by attacking mitochondria, the energy powerhouses of all living
cells. Research found that exposure to rotenone caused Parkinsons Disease-like symptoms in
rats 4, and had the potential to kill many species, including humans. Rotenones use as a pesticide has
already been discontinued in the US as of 2005 due to health concerns***, but shockingly, its still poured into our waters every year
by fisheries management officials as a piscicide to remove unwanted fish species.
The point Im driving home here is that just because something is natural doesnt make it non-toxic or safe. Many bacteria, fungi and
plants produce poisons, toxins and chemicals that you definitely wouldnt want sprayed on your food.

Wilcox 2011 (Christie, Scientific American, July 18 Mythbusting 101: Organic Farming > Conventional
Agriculture. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/07/18/mythbusting-101-organicfarming-conventional-agriculture/
Even if the organic food youre eating is from a farm which uses little to no pesticides at all, there is, but
only 2% of conventional ones10. The same study also found Salmonella only in samples from organic
farms, though at a low prevalence rate. The reason for the higher pathogen prevalence is likely due to the
use of manure instead of artificial fertilizers, as many pathogens are spread through fecal contamination.
Conventional farms often use manure, too, but they use irradiation and a full array of non-organic antimicrobial agents as well, and without those, organic foods run a higher risk of containing something that
will make a person sick.

Wilcox 2011 (Christie, Scientific American, July 18 Mythbusting 101: Organic Farming > Conventional
Agriculture. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/07/18/mythbusting-101-organicfarming-conventional-agriculture/
Some people believe that by not using manufactured chemicals or genetically modified organisms, organic
farming produces more nutritious food. However, science simply cannot find any evidence that organic
foods are in any way healthier than non-organic ones and scientists have been comparing the two for over
50 years.
Just recently, an independent research project in the UK systematically reviewed the 162 articles on organic
versus non-organic crops published in peer-reviewed journals between 1958 and 2008 11. These contained
a total of 3558 comparisons of content of nutrients and other substances in organically and conventionally
produced foods. They found absolutely no evidence for any differences in content of over 15 different
nutrients including vitamin C, -carotene, and calcium. There were some differences, though; conventional
crops had higher nitrogen levels, while organic ones had higher phosphorus and acidity none of which
factor in much to nutritional quality. Further analysis of similar studies on livestock products like meat,
dairy, and eggs also found few differences in nutritional content. Organic foods did, however, have higher
levels of overall fats, particularly trans fats. So if anything, the organic livestock products were found to be
worse for us (though, to be fair, barely).

This is great news for consumers. It proves that the 98% of food we consume, which is produced by
technologically advanced agriculture, is equally nutritious to the less than 2% derived from what is
commonly referred to as the organic market, said Fredhelm Schmider, the Director General of the
European Crop Protection Association said in a press release about the findings.12
Joseph D. Rosen, emeritus professor of food toxicology at Rutgers, puts it even more strongly. Any
consumers who buy organic food because they believe that it contains more healthful nutrients than
conventional food are wasting their money, he writes in a comprehensive review of organic nutritional
claims13.

Wilcox 2011 (Christie, Scientific American, July 18 Mythbusting 101: Organic Farming > Conventional
Agriculture. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/07/18/mythbusting-101-organicfarming-conventional-agriculture/
As an ecologist by training, this myth bothers me the most of all three. People seem to believe theyre
doing the world a favor by eating organic. The simple fact is that theyre not at least the issue is not that
cut and dry.
Yes, organic farming practices use less synthetic pesticides which have been found to be ecologically
damaging. But factory organic farms use their own barrage of chemicals that are still ecologically
damaging, and refuse to endorse technologies that might reduce or eliminate the use of these all together.
Take, for example, organic farmings adamant stance against genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
GMOs have the potential to up crop yields, increase nutritious value, and generally improve farming
practices while reducing synthetic chemical use which is exactly what organic farming seeks to do. As we
speak, there are sweet potatoes are being engineered to be resistant to a virus that currently decimates the
African harvest every year, which could feed millions in some of the poorest nations in the world15.
Scientists have created carrots high in calcium to fight osteoperosis, and tomatoes high in antioxidants.
Almost as important as what we can put into a plant is what we can take out; potatoes are being modified so
that they do not produce high concentrations of toxic glycoalkaloids, and nuts are being engineered to lack
the proteins which cause allergic reactions in most people. Perhaps even more amazingly, bananas are
being engineered to produce vaccines against hepatitis B, allowing vaccination to occur where its otherwise
too expensive or difficult to be administered. The benefits these plants could provide to human beings all
over the planet are astronomical.
Yet organic proponents refuse to even give GMOs a chance, even to the point of hypocrisy. For
example, organic farmers apply Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) toxin (a small insecticidal protein from soil
bacteria) unabashedly across their crops every year, as they have for decades. Its one of the most widely
used organic pesticides by organic farmers. Yet when genetic engineering is used to place the gene

encoding the Bt toxin into a plants genome, the resulting GM plants are vilified by the very
people willing to liberally spray the exact same toxin that the gene encodes for over the exact

same species of plant. Ecologically, the GMO is a far better solution, as it reduces the amount
of toxin being used and thus leeching into the surrounding landscape and waterways. Other
GMOs have similar goals, like making food plants flood-tolerant so occasional flooding can replace
herbicide use as a means of killing weeds. If the goal is protect the environment, why not incorporate the
newest technologies which help us do so?
But the real reason organic farming isnt more green than conventional is that while it might be better for
local environments on the small scale, organic farms produce far less food per unit land than conventional
ones. Organic farms produce around 80% that what the same size conventional farm produces16 (some
studies place organic yields below 50% those of conventional farms!).
Wilcox 2011 (Christie, Scientific American, July 18 Mythbusting 101: Organic Farming > Conventional
Agriculture. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/07/18/mythbusting-101-organicfarming-conventional-agriculture/
Right now, roughly 800 million people suffer from hunger and malnutrition, and about 16

million of those will die from it17. If we were to switch to entirely organic farming, the
number of people suffering would jump by 1.3 billion, assuming we use the same amount of land
that were using now. Unfortunately, whats far more likely is that switches to organic farming will result
in the creation of new farms via the destruction of currently untouched habitats, thus plowing over the little
wild habitat left for many threatened and endangered species.
Already, we have cleared more than 35% of the Earths ice-free land surface for agriculture, an area 60
times larger than the combined area of all the worlds cities and suburbs. Since the last ice age, nothing has
been more disruptive to the planets ecosystem and its inhabitants than agriculture. What will happen to
whats left of our planets wildlife habitats if we need to mow down another 20% or more of the worlds
ice-free land to accommodate for organic methods?
The unfortunate truth is that until organic farming can rival the production output of conventional farming,
its ecological cost due to the need for space is devastating. As bad as any of the pesticides and fertilizers
polluting the worlds waterways from conventional agriculture are, its a far better ecological situation than
destroying those key habitats altogether. Thats not to say that theres no hope for organic farming; better
technology could overcome the production gap, allowing organic methods to produce on par with
conventional agriculture. If that does occur, then organic agriculture becomes a lot more ecologically
sustainable. On the small scale, particularly in areas where food surpluses already occur, organic farming
could be beneficial, but presuming its the end all be all of sustainable agriculture is a mistake.

Negative

Bio- Cap Links

Their advocacy of GMOs as solutions and tools for risk aversion solidifies the
neoliberal security paradigm and provides agribusiness a rhetorical cover for
being the root-cause of the problems of globalized hunger and poverty in the
first place.
Nally 10 David Nally The biopolitics of food provisioning *Department of Geography, University of Cambridge+ 23 June 2010\
In other instances, genetic engineering is promoted as a means to diminish future threats and risks.
In his account of scarcity, Foucault (2007, 11; 2003, 246) delineated a coterie of practices directed toward managing the aleatory,
by which he meant the occurrence of uncertain events, like droughts

and floods, events that were previously

ascribed to nature and were therefore considered ungovernable (Bougen 2003; OMalley 2000 2003).
The physiocrats, however, promoted the belief that uncertain events could be managed if the
state turned its attention to promoting free markets. This concern with the aleatoric is
replayed in

much of

today s promotional literature as corporate agribusinesses reposition

themselves as entrepreneurs in risk mitigation and foresight methodologies (GFAR 2010, xxi).
Agro-biotechnologies are understood to provide plant breeders with new crops that are
preemptively insured against attacks by insects and pathogens (biotic stresses) and
engineered to cope with climate change and environmental instability (abiotic stresses). As
pointed out in an important Nuffield Council report (2003), the ability of certain plants to survive in harsh climatic conditions is
thought to be associated with specific genes. If these genes can be isolated and successfully introduced into crops, they promise to
be particularly valuable for developing countries, where abiotic stresses such as drought, heat, frost and acidic or salty soils are
common (2003, 26). The Nuffield report (2003, 36) invites us to imagine a biofuture replete with frost-tolerant potatoes in Bolivia,
salt-tolerant wheat in Egypt, cold-tolerant tomatoes in China, and salt- and moisture-stress-resistant rice in Thailand. Undoubtedly
risk aversion is a central component in the codification of genomic discourses (terms like biosafety and biosecurity abound) and

the recent adoption of the term food insecurity (over conventional expressions like
starvation and hunger) suggests that the politics of food is now firmly embedded in a
neoliberal apparatus of security.
managing scarcity

By another reading, however,

pre-empting

aleatoric stresses

and

can be thought of as a stratagem for re-engineering the provisioning

cultures of the vulnerable poor . Repositioning transgenic biotechnologies as corrective

healthcare, for example, is reminiscent of Foucaults characterisation of biopower as a mode
of public hygiene that works to medicalize the population (Foucault 2003, 244; see also Bashford 2006)
in order to legitimise curative practices. Today, industry specialists readily talk of engineering
plants that produce traits for curing cancer a meshing of pharmaceutical firms and agribusiness known as
pharming and who is opposed to curing cancer? , as one enthusiast opined (Herring 2007a, 21). The
promoters of Golden Rice (rice fortified with Vitamin A) refer to the nutritional holocaust that will be
avoided by embracing bio-fortification techniques that reduce unwanted antinutrients and
enhance the bioavailability of essential minerals and vitamins.7 Through the semiotics of
therapy and risk avoidance , corporate agribusiness lays claim to being a central player in the
war on hunger, predicting a future of increased yields, reduced biotic and abiotic threats, and
engineered crops that target micro-nutritional deficiencies in vulnerable communities. In
short, changes at the molecular level are seen to be the principal route to agrarian reform,
offering so it seems cheap health insurance for millions of poor farmers

(OECD 2009, 42).

GMOs allow agribusiness corporations to totally corner the market between

crop control and crops themselves, biofuel GMOs make global hunger and food
conflicts inevitable, and criminalize local producers attempts to save cash and
ways of life outside of the GMO companies paradigm, cementing the
biopolitical security state only this time, the panopticon is administered by
the public.
Nally 10 David Nally The biopolitics of food provisioning *Department of Geography, University of Cambridge+ 23 June 2010\
For giant corporations like Cargill and Monsanto, controlling agricultural life begins with
seeds, the first link in the food chain (Shiva 2000, 801). Kloppenburg helpfully elaborates: A seed is, in essence, a
packet of genetic information, an envelope containing a DNA message. In that message are encoded the templates for the
subsequent development of the mature plant. The content of the code crucially shapes the manner in which the growing plant
responds to its environment. Insofar as biotechnology

genetic code, the seed , as embodied information,

permits the scientific and detailed reprogramming of the

becomes the nexus of control over the

determination and shape of the entire crop production process. (2004, 201, emphasis in original) At
the production end of the food chain, seeds can be designed to withstand the application of particular
herbicides and pesticides, creating a captured market for selling more chemicals (Lawrence 2004,
61). Monsantos Roundup Ready Soy, for example, is genetically engineered to resist Monsantos
broad-spectrum herbicide. As Monsantos flagship product, Roundup is the most widely used weed
killer in the world and is responsible for the lions share of the companys profits. The ability to
engineer seeds so that they are paired with particular herbicides and pesticides explains why
chemical companies largely sponsor research and capital investment in seed technologies, but
the potential for horizontal expansion is also enormous. Several firms are presently developing
seeds that are more amenable to biofuel production. In Malaysia a number of projects have already been
established to develop B100, a biofuel made entirely from palm oil; if successful, these products will convert
automobile drivers into consumers of agricultural products (Shiva 2008, 87), with wholly
predictable consequences for global hunger. In a recently leaked World Bank report, for instance, increases
in agro-fuel production were linked to escalating global food costs and price volatility in 2007
and 2008.9 More worryingly, control of seed production and reproduction is expropriating the
subsistence rights of poor peasants and accelerating the historical process of depeasantisation
(Araghi 1995; Davis 2007; UN-Habitat 2003, 25). The commercialisation of seeds criminalises redistributive
anti-scarcity practices, like seed-saving and seed-sharing, thereby eroding non-market access to food in
self-provisioning societies. Little wonder Roberts characterises the commodification of seeds as *is+ one
of the biggest transfers of wealth in human history (2008, 25). To prevent farmers from illegally
using seeds, several corporations are currently working on state-of-the-art surveillance systems
that can be used to detect unauthorised use of patented plants. Already farmers using
Monsantos products must sign a detailed contract that authorises, inter alia, random farm
inspections. Monsanto also operates a piracy hotline and encourages neighbouring farmers
to report any suspected contravention of the companys patents.10 The development of gene
use restriction technologies (GURTs) less flatteringly called terminator genes may render these repressive
controls obsolete. By engineering seed that cannot reproduce, farmers will be forced to return
to the market annually. Ever more, Jack will have to pay for his beanstalk.

Drought Resistant Crops bad

Current drought-resistant crops trade off with yield turns case because they
actually reduce the amount of food produced. Studies about gene lines are
needed to obtain the optimal result.
Susanto 14 [Untung (Department of Agrotechnology, Faculty of Agriculture, Jenderal Soedirman University), Ponendi Hidayat,
and Yugi R. Ahadiyat (2Indonesian Center for Rice Research (ICRR) Jl. Raya 9 Sukamandi). Drought tolerance, phosphorus efficiency
and yield characters of upland rice Lines, Plant Science. 2014. http://ejfa.info/index.php/ejfa/article/download/14417/8971]

In general, upland rice lines with the character of tolerance to drought tend low in P efficiency
and vice versa. However, Unsoed G9 showed to be superior in drought tolerance and P efficiency. Improving in
morphological and physiological characters of plant could enhance level of drought tolerance
but not for yield. Previously studies on five upland varieties showed that low in leaf areas and number of panicles gained the
low yield (Ahadiyat dan Harjoso, 2010a,b). This is a fact that paddy is sensitive plant to water deficit and would be resulted drought
effect and could gain the low in growth and yield. However, drought character is the important thing for paddy under dry land area
especially in rainfed areas with character of low water availability due to low intensity of rainfall during plant growth. Therefore,

some genotypes with the character of drought tolerance could be used as important genetic
resources for parental and could be possible to breed with genotypes with the character of
high yield even low tolerance to drought. Thus, additional character for improving adaptability
under acid soils must be found. The characters as mentioned above could be possible to further breed with genotypes
characters of P efficient. This effort must be done because of high in P performance of content and efficient resulted low in yield as
reported by Ozturk et al. (2005) and Gunes et al. (2006). Some upland rice lines with the characters of efficient but not respond and
not efficient and not respond had high performance in yield potency (>6 t/ha), dry biomass of shoot and root. It could develop by
using both characters as genetic resources for adaptable genotypes grown under acid soils (low P availability). As mentioned by
Fageria et al. (1988), Fageria and Baligar (1997) and Gunes et al. (2006) that selection of genotypes under low P availability in soils
could use dry weight of shoot and root as indicators. Under control condition in screen house, this

study has been found

the potential lines with characters of drought tolerance and P use efficiency. Therefore, it needs
the further studies to ensure the performance consistency of all upland rice lines through grown in real field
conditions of rainfed areas. To achieve the better inform of crop improvement, research must
continue and understanding the interactions between plant genotypes and the growing
environment under conditions of P deficient (Wissuwa, 2003) and drought (Parry et al., 2005). Conclusion
Upland rice lines of IR 75885-26-2-3-B-18-B-2- 1-B, Unsoed G9 and Unsoed G19 gained higher in grain yield under drought condition
than others. Yet, Unram 1E and Unsoed G13 had potency to drought even low in grain yield. For P efficiency characterization, upland
rice lines of IR 75885-25- 1-3-B-5-1-2-B-B, IR 75885-26-2-3-B-18-B-2-1-B and Unsoed G19 gained in higher grain yield under low dose
of P than others along with characters of not responsive and, efficient or not efficient to P. Upland rice line of Unsoed G9 had
characters in drought tolerance and P efficiency with high in grain yield. Therefore, for

obtaining ideotype variety with

the characters of drought tolerance, P efficient and high yield is needed to conduct the further
studies and evaluate the performance consistency of upland rice lines through grown under real conditions in
the field of rainfed areas for ensure the potency of each lines.

Public opinion against

The majority of Americans are against the use of GMOs.
Langer 13, Gary *Analyst for ABC News+. June 19, 2013. Poll: Skepticism of Genetically Modified Foods. ABC News
With safety concerns widespread, Americans almost unanimously favor mandatory labels on genetically modified foods. And most

Barely more than a third of the public believes that

genetically modified foods are safe to eat. Instead 52 percent believe such foods are unsafe, and
an additional 13 percent are unsure about them. That's broad doubt on the very basic issue of food safety. Nearly
say they'd use those labels to avoid the food.

everyone, moreover 93 percent says the federal government should require labels on food saying whether it's been genetically
modified, or "bio-engineered" (this poll used both phrases). Such near-unanimity in public opinion is rare. Fifty-seven

percent also say they'd be less likely to buy foods labeled as genetically modified. That puts the
food industry in a quandary: By meeting consumer demand for labeling, it would be steering business away from its genetically
modified products. The image problem of genetically modified food is underscored by contrast to organic foods. While only five
percent of Americans say they'd be more likely to buy a food labeled as genetically modified, 52 percent say they'd be more likely to
buy food that's labeled as having been raised organically. Genetically modified foods are particularly unpopular among women,
another problem for food producers since so many women do the family shopping.

Sixty-two percent of women think

genetically modified foods are unsafe to eat, a view that's shared by far fewer men, 40 percent. Indeed a plurality
of men think these foods are safe, while women disagree by better than 2-1. Similarly, while 49 percent of men say
they'd be less likely to buy food labeled as genetically modified, that jumps to 65 percent of
women. (Similar numbers of women and men say they're more likely to buy organic foods.)
Methodology: This ABCNEWS.com survey was conducted by telephone June 13-17, among a random national sample of 1,024
adults. The results have a three-point margin of error

Environmental risks
Turn: Genetic engineering is potentially damaging, especially to the viability of
agricultural lands,
Bhargava 02 Bhargava, Pushpa. GMOs: Need for Appropriate Risk Assessment System.. Economic and Political Weekly, Vol.
37, No. 15, (April 13-19, 2002) pgs. 1402-1406 http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/4411984.pdf

Genetic engineering technology is one of the most important technologies that has ever been developed. The enormous
variety and the variability that we find in the living universe is a consequence of Natures random, chance- driven genetic

have not always been good for mankind. Thus, in Europe,

hybridization between cultivated sugar beets and wild beets led to the evolution of weed
beets which did not provide usable product and damaged harvesting equipment, leading to a
loss of millions of dollars per year to Europes sugar beets industry. Escape of the African sub-species of
honeybee in Brazil led to the evolution of Africanized honeybee in the new world that disrupted
the Latin American honey industry, caused human deaths, and killed livestock. And
hybridization between wild rye and cultivated rye in north-eastern California led to the evolution of
weedy rye which has rendered the region unsuitable for cultivation of both wheat and rye.
engineering and, as one might expect, the results

Genetically engineered organisms can never be recalled if damaging,

Bhargava 02 Bhargava, Pushpa. GMOs: Need for Appropriate Risk Assessment System.. Economic and Political Weekly, Vol.
37, No. 15, (April 13-19, 2002) pgs. 1402-1406 http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/4411984.pdf
The advantage

when one markets chemical products such as drugs made through genetic engineering

is that if, at any given time, the product is found to be harmful, one can stop manufacturing it. Thus, tryptophan, an
essential aminoacid, which was marketed in the US as a food additive for some time, was made by a Japanese company through
genetic engineeringthat is, using a genetically engineered micro-organism. It turned out that this tryptophan had a contaminant
which led to a rare disease. As soon as this was established, the production of genetically engineered tryptophan was stopped by

Unfortunately, when we release genetically engineered plants,

microorganisms, animals, or marine organisms in the environment, it would be difficult to
recall any of themespecially in the case of plants, microorganisms, and marine organisms. Thus, while the benefit to
agriculture through genetically engineered seeds can be dramatic and has the potential of increasing productivity, if a problem
arises there is no way that we can recall all the all the seeds as, by that time, they would have
spread widely. It is, for this reason that an appropriate regulation of the release of genetically engineered living organisms into
the Japanese company.

the environment has been advocated internationally.

Other neg ideas

http://el.doccentre.info/eldoc1/KICS/GM_crops_and_neocolonialism.pdf

The following problems, besides the one mentioned above, can

arise from the release or otherwise wide-spread use of GMOs in
the environment.
(1) Introduction or creation of a new or known toxin or allergen.
An example would be the Brazil nut-soyabean case (6).
(2) Gene flow that has already been mentioned (7-8) and that could
have adverse effects. For example, marker genes conferring
antibiotic resistance that are often used in genetic engineering
could be transferred to pathogenic microorganisms, thus making
them resistant to antibiotics. It has been recently shown that 10-20
percent genes have been laterally transferred in the last one
hundred million years on our planet.
(3) Experimental errors. For example, Monsanto once cloned the
wrong gene in canola.
(4) Competing of the genetically engineered organism with wild or
other desirable strains or varieties on account of growth advantage
or other advantages.
(5) Interference with a desirable symbiotic relationship. For
example, Bt crops could destroy useful insects as well as change
the microflora of the soil. The deleterious effect of such crops - at
least on a laboratory scale - has been demonstrated on monarch
butterflies.
(6) Dispersal into areas where positive harm could be done (6).
(7) Changes in surface properties that may affect normal
interaction between species in a viable Bnd useful ecosystem.
(8) Reproductive interference.

(9) A second-site change. Thus, an insertion of the desired gene in

the genetically engineered organism could take place not only at
the desirable but also at an undesirable place in the host genome,
which could have deleterious effects. j .
(10) Increased selective transcription and translation. Transcription
and 'tsatlslat~olr are processes in cells which lead to the
transmission of information contained in the genetic material,
DNA, to proteins. Vast changes in concentrations of precursors
following genetic engineering could, in some cases, lead to
increased transcription or translation of certain genes, leading to an
mdesirable imbalance in the cell.
(11) Changes in relative concentration of intracellular metabolites.
This again could lead to metabolic imbalances.
(12) Development of resistance to the trait that is introduced.
(13) Increasing requirement for refuge crops in case of, for
example, Bt crops. Development of resistance in insects to the Bt
toxin produced in genetically engineered Bt plants, such as Bt
cotton, is now widely known, requiring plantation of lefirgc non-Bt
crops to attract the insects that are resistant to Bt.
(14) Increase in susceptibility to pests, could infectious agents
other than those that may be expected to be killed by the transgens.
(15) Emergence of new dangers, e.g. of superweeds on prolonged
use of GM herbicide resistant GM crops.
( 16)

Toxicity of GM crops to farm animals (e.g. death of 12 dairy

cows after belng fed GM maize and silage on a farm in
Woelfersheim, Germany).
(17) Pleitropic effects leading to unexpected undesirable changes,
fol- example., In ecology. In fact, six areas of such effects have
been identified: metabolism, tolerance of physical factors,

behaviour, factors regulating or releasing populations, demography

and life history, and morphology. In GMOs, any one or more of
the above could be drastically changed. The above-mentioned six
classes of changes could lead to more than 70 ~dentifiable
phenotypic changes and more than 30 potential ecological effects.
(1 8) Crossing of country or region boundaries. For example, US
transgen~c corn has been recently (in 2001) found to be grcwing
wild in Mexico in a region which is a recognized global center for
corn biodiversity. In the context of the last mentioned of the
above risks, we should take into account the following factors that
may put a recipient country at risk in respect of a GMO coming
into its territory, either unintentionally or as an act of deliberation
that may or may not involve the consent of both the pa,rties (the
'donor' and the 'recipient').
(a) An underdeveloped capacity to identify and assess ecological
and economic importance of biotic holdings.
(b) A climatic pattern, soil-composition and social structure that is
different from the country of origin of the GMO. For example,
where there is a lack of dramatic seasonal change (as in the case of
absence of a cold winter), the environment may be at a greater risk
of damage due to introduction of new organisms including GMOs.
(c) The lack of ability to extrapolate the results of testing for
ecological risks, when the original testing was done in a different
climate. (d) The presence of a variety of crops that are not
extensively different fionr~ t11e w~lci types, in the recipient area.
In such places, if the vigour of these near-w~ld-type crops were
artificially increased by gene flow fiom a GMO, the crops could
become ecologlcai problems.
(e) The presence of centers of crop origin and genetic diversity in
the recipient region These pools of genetic reserves are critical to
the development of new strains to meet the challenges from new

diseases, pests, and changing climatic conditions. (f) Lack of

adequate quality-control facilities and of resources and personnel
to validate the claims in regard to the GMO made by the donor
country, and to detect, monitor and analyse any unusual health
effects of the GMO. For example, the discovery of the new disease,
eosinophilia mylangia that was somehow caused by two batches of
L- .trqptophutl made by genetically engineered bacteria referred to
above, was facilitated by the fact that many of the people who died
or were crippled, lived in the vicinlty of the Mayo Clinic in
Rochester in the US, a world center for the analysis of unusual
illnesses. If the L-tryptophan had been marketed in a part of the
world that was not so fortunate as to have a facility like the Mayo
Clinic, the very fact that there was an epidemic might have gone
undetected, the product might not have been withdrawn, and the
deaths and crippling might have continued.