By Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, PhD, senior scientist at Pesticide Action Network
As reported in this week’s UK Guardian, Nina Federoff spoke about threats to science at a meeting of 8,000 professional scientists. The former Bush 
Administration official and GMO proponent described her “profound depression” at how difficult it is to “get a realistic conversation started on issues such as climate change or genetically modified organisms.” I too have agonized over our inability to talk seriously about climate change.
However — and this is no small matter — by conflating fringe climate-deniers with established scientists raising valid concerns about the effects of GMOs, Federoff undermines the scientific integrity that she purports to uphold. The hypocrisy is astonishing.
The reason we cannot get a reality-based conversation started on GMOs is because we have precious little independent science on their effectiveness or safety. We know so little about GMOs’ safety or efficacy because global ag biotech firms like Monsanto, Dow and DuPont actively suppress science under the heading of protecting “confidential business information.” Companies routinely deny scientists’ research requests and suppress publication of research by threatening legal action, a practice one scientist describes as “chilling.”
In February 2009, 26 corn-pest scientists anonymously submitted a statement to U.S. EPA decrying industry’s prohibitive restrictions on independent research, especially as concerns ag biotech. They submitted the following statement anonymously for fear of being blacklisted:
“Technology/stewardship agreements required for the purchase of genetically modified seed explicitly prohibit research. These agreements inhibit public scientists from pursuing their mandated role on behalf of the public good unless the research is approved by industry. As a result of restricted access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology, its performance, its management implications, IRM, and its interactions with insect biology. Consequently, data flowing to an EPA Scientific Advisory Panel from the public sector is unduly limited.”
The same year, the editors of Scientific American warned of the debilitating effects of the ag biotech industry’s attacks on science:
“Unfortunately, it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised. That is because agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers.”
When the world’s top scientists have been allowed to examine freely the available evidence, unfettered by corporate restrictions, the results stand in startling contrast to industry claims. Four years ago, the agricultural equivalent of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was completed, the World Bank and UN-led International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD). I participated as a lead author in that rigorous 4-year process, in which over 400 scientist and development experts from more than 80 countries conducted the most comprehensive assessment of international agricultural technology to date. The IAASTD’s findings were clear:
- Genetically engineered crops have failed to deliver on industry promises of increased yields, nutritional value, salt or drought-tolerance.
- The unprecedented pace of corporate concentration in the pesticide and seed industry has enabled the ag biotech industry to exert undue influence over public policy and research institutions, funneling public resources towards products that have benefited their manufacturers without generating benefits for the world’s poor.
- The developing world’s best hopes for feeding itself, especially under conditions of climate change, lie not in GMOs, but rather in approaches such as agroecology—the integration of cutting-edge agroecological sciences with farmer innovation and locally appropriate, productive and profitable, ecological farming practices. The ability of agroecology to double food production within 10 years was recently re-affirmed by the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food.
So yes, let’s beat back the “anti-science lobby” and restore scientific integrity to public policy and independence and transparency to our research institutions. The future of our planet depends on it.
Pesticide Action Network North America (PAN North America) works to replace the use of hazardous pesticides with ecologically sound and socially just alternatives. As one of five PAN Regional Centers worldwide, we link local and international consumer, labor, health, environment and agriculture groups into an international citizens’ action network. This network challenges the global proliferation of pesticides, defends basic rights to health and environmental quality, and works to ensure the transition to a just and viable society.
I am all for safe organic foods free from chemicals and pesticides in the feild or harvesting and proccessing and manufacturing. People have a right to expect the food supply to be safe and not cause harm. Our water
tables also need protecting as well as the worlds entire enviroment-air, land and sea.
I live in Montgomery County, Maryland and we have a local organic farmer who produces gmo-free heirloom seeds in a geographically isolated location. He has been able to produce these seeds far from other farms that plant identity seeds for 31 years. Now our County government wants to turn the land over to Soccer organization so they can build 4 soccer fields. The organic farmer was offered a reclaimed landfill so the Soccer Organization could have the 31 year old organic soil to play on. It’s an infuriating scenario we’re desperately trying to fight. This farmer is one of the few in the mid-atlantic region growing gmo-free organic seed. The community wants to support him and teach public school kids about organic farming. Yet the County Executive insists on turning the farm into soccer fields. We hope to make some progress by May 2012 to save this treasure.
You ask, where is the legit science on genetically engineered crops, saying we have “precious little independent science.” In fact, there’s an enormous amount of research that has been done on these crops, both independent and otherwise. An independent site I co-run called Biofortified maintains a list of studies related to the relative risks of GE crops, and of our list of over 340 studies, 1/3 of them are independent:
http://www.biofortified.org/genera/studies-for-genera/
Perhaps we are having a hard time with a reality-based discussion of genetic engineering because people don’t take the time to find the science, and just say it is not there?
We’re also about halfway done on a system to make these studies more accessible to people – so as scientists we’re trying to do our part.
“No Research” simply means the research done hasn’t produced the results that people ultimately want to hear. What people want to hear is that GMO’s are dangerous for humans, other organisms, and the environment, and some will continue to claim there is unclear research until they get what they want. The idea that products are being released into wide scale production without being tested over and over again is ridiculous. The EPA regulates everything that is released by biotech companies. It is unfortunate that products such as Agent Orange have been used in the past, but it’s not 1970 anymore. Every product is rigorously tested these days and take several years to be approved.
When it comes to organic crop production, I am all for it. People have the right to raise crops organically if they want. However, organic crop production simply will not feed the growing world in the future. It is impossible with limited resources such and land and water.