What is agro-genetic engineering?

Genetic engineering makes it possible for genetic material to be transferred to there organisms of different species. The genetic material from human cells, and from animals, plants and micro-organisms too, is isolated and then transferred o any other organism at will, in order to provide it with new characteristics. In her words, genetic engineering is not a natural follow-up to classic cultivation or breeding methods, since in this case only closelyrelated species which can cross-breed naturally are used.

Genetically modified plants

Multinationals in the seed and pesticide industries have so far developed and marketed “genetically engineered plants” with the following characteristics:
resistance to herbicides and resistance to insects. In the case of resistance to herbicides, the genetic material of agricultural crops is manipulated to become resistant to sprays which kill off each and every plant. Herbicide manufacturers such as Monsanto and Bayer develop such “genetically engineered plants” and sell them as a package along with the corresponding herbicides, such as “Roundup” and “Basta”. Such non-selective systematic herbicides accelerate the extinction of species and pollute the soil, water and living organisms. In the case of resistance to insects, the intention is to make plants resistant to insects, using genetic engineering. A gene from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) induces the formation of a poison lethal to insects, such as Bt maize by Syngenta. It has been shown, however, that the poison in Bt plants has seeped into the soil – with unknown effects on soil organisms.
Butterfl ies and other benefi cial insects can come to harm through the poison.
Farm areas totalling 125 million hectares throughout the world are now ultivating “genetically engineered plants”. The main commercial uses are for soya, maize, cotton and rape. The main growers of genetically modifi ed
plants are the USA, Argentina, Brazil, India and Canada.

Risks and dangers of genetic engineering in agriculture

The chances supposedly offered by genetic engineering in agriculture have to be seen from the perspective to the great inherent risks involved. The increasing use of pesticides in agriculture carries great danger both to mankind and the environment. There are reports from Argentina of grave health problems in people resulting from the production of genetically modified soya, where herbicides are applied intensively. New ingredients in “genetically engineered food” can pose a risk to human health, for example by triggering allergies. Once they have escaped from control, „genetically engineered plants” can never be retrieved. Traditional plants and spices become genetically  polluted and supplanted. Moreover, biological diversity is imperilled. Organic and conventional farmers, market-gardeners, beekeepers and other agriculturists run the risk of not being able to sell their harvests if their products become genetically polluted. It is not possible for conventional, organic and genetically modifi ed crops to exist side by side. Despite this, the EU Commission in Brussels talks about co-existence. Although it is a known fact hat contamination with genetically modifi ed organisms is inevitable, “co-existence” has in politics acquired a new defi nition value, a step which large bodies of the population consider is depriving them of their right to decide what they want to buy. Genetic engineering in agriculture is a technology for rationalisation, i. e. it is a job-killer. It is not designed to meet the local needs and does not fi t into the farming systems of smallholders in the poorer countries.

Resistance to genetic engineering

Scepticism towards genetic engineering has been growing steadily throughout the world because of its risks to human beings and the environment. In Europe, growing numbers of farmers and communities are joining forces to declare their land “zones free of genetic engineering”. Surveys in Germany have shown that over 70% of consumers reject the idea of genetically engineered food landing on their plates. Naturland considers genetic engineering as a blind alley and categorically rejects the use of this risky technology which makes no contribution whatsoever to sustainability in agriculture. Manipulated seed which is resistant to non-selective herbicides and which the farmer is obliged to buy anew each year leads to new forms of dependence and the disappearance of traditional knowledge. Biodiversity is one of the pillars of site-specifi c organic agriculture. Moreover, a recent survey by the University of Kansas shows that the cultivation of genetically engineered soya actually yields 10% less than conventional soya seed. It is welcome news to learn that the report of the World Food Council does not regard genetic engineering as an opportunity not to be missed, despite the current tense situation of the agricultural markets. It is high time that national governments call a halt to the further expansion of genetic engineering. In Europe, the right position of points have already been set: The commercial production of genetic engineering maize is prohibited until further notice in France, Austria, Hungary, Greece, Luxembourg and Germany.

Taking Mexico as an example: genetic engineering imperils variety of maize

In Mexico, genetically engineering soya and cotton are cultivated on a grand scale. Up to recently, a moratorium was imposed on genetically modifi ed maize. Since March, 2009, however, multinational seed corporations, such are Monsanto, have been allowed to cultivate genetically engineering maize for research purposes. This decision of the Mexican government is a precursor
to issuing a licence for commercial exploitation in the years to come. What this means to the region from which maize originated, and to biological variety, is: acute danger of gene flow to hundreds of original varieties and thus the deterioration of the crop most important to Latin America as far as sustainable cultivation is concerned. Mexico has no need of genetically engineered maize but would instead benefi t greatly from ecologically oriented development and an agricultural policy with sustainable objectives and which encourages smallholders. What is worse, in Mexican legislation there is no law requiring genetically modifi ed foodstuffs from being declared as such, nor any provisions made for “GMO farmers” to bear liability for economic damage to third parties, e. g. to organic farmers and beekeepers.

For more information on this topic, please consult the following internet pages, which are available in several languages:

 www.infoxgen.com
 www.genet-info.org
 www.greenpeace.org
 www.saveourseeds.org
 wwww.gmo-free-regions.org

 More information about Agro GMO from NABU