GENETICALLY MODIFIED PLANTS

GLOBAL STATUS OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED PLANTS:

*Global Area of Transgenic Crops in 1996, 1997 and 1998.**
Year	Hectares (Million)	Industrial Countries	Developing Countries
1996	1.7	--	--
1997	11.0	9.5	1.5
1998	27.8	23.4	4.4

*Excluding China
Source: Clive James, ISAAA No. 8, 1998

Releases of Transgenic Plants in Developing Countries:

Species	Introduced trait
	Total field releases	Herbicide resistance	Insect resistance	Virus resistance	Product quality	Others
Maize	46	29	16	1	3	5
Soya bean	27	25	-	1	1	-
Cotton	24	16	15	-	-	-
Tomato	19	-	2	1	16	-
Potato	13	-	1	6	-	6
Subtotal	129	70	34	9	20	11
Other species	30
Total	159
Source: Biotechnology and Development Monitor, No. 28, Sept. 1996

Genetically Modified Crops claim their first Victim:

Arpad Pusztai of Rowett Research Institute, scotland lost his job for publishing his concern about the adverse effects of genetically modified crops on our health. The effect of a diet containing genetically modified potatoes expressing snowdrop lectin on the small intestine of a rat was published in a British medical journal. It led to a spurt of media reports causing worldwide public concern about this issue.

Wheat gliadin, which causes coeliac disease, contains a lectin like substance that binds to human intestine mucosa. This has led to the discovery of coeliac disease toxin but could be managed by gluten avoidance and nothing really to prove the lectin hypothesis. A few lectins, like those found in red kidney bean (PHA), concanavilin (Con A) have been found to cause dietary problems and damage to intestines.

Pusztai was suspended because some of the claims that he made about the effect of GM-Potatoes could not be substantiated by his data and a number of longterm feeding studies conducted by him were found to be incomplete.

Hazards of Genetically Engineered Foods and Crops (?!!)

(Why We Need A Global Moratorium)

A brief look at the already-proven and likely hazards of GE products provides a convincing argument for why we need a global moratorium on all GE foods and crops.

•Toxins & Poisons

•Increased Cancer Risks

•Food Allergies

•Damage to Food Quality & Nutrition

•Antibiotic Resistance

•Increased Pesticide Residues in the Soil and on Crops

•Genetic Pollution

•Damage to Beneficial Insects and Soil Fertility

•Creation of GE "Superweeds" and "Superpests"

•Creation of New Viruses and Bacteria

•Genetic "Bio-Invasion"

•Socioeconomic Hazards

•Ethical Hazards

Backers of genetic improvement insist that it is not fundamentally different from traditional breeding, in which one plant might be cross pollinated with a wild cousin to produce a hardier variety. Genetic improvement involves splicing a single gene from one organism to another.

A major concern of scientists is making sure transplanted genes do not cause allergic reactions. Biotech ingredients, primarily from soybeans and corn, already are in wide use in supermarkets and fast-food restaurants, in everything from tortilla chips to soda and baby food formula. The FDA does not consider biotech ingredients fundamentally different from conventional ones.

Finally, we need to ensure that our regulators just regulate and only regulate. A few years ago, USDA created a food safety agency separate and distinct from any and all marketing functions to ensure that no commercial interests have even the appearance of influence on their decisions regarding food safety.

USDA will undertake a review to reinforce the clear line between their regulatory functions and those that promote and support trade. This reaffirms our basic principle that we will remain scrupulously rigid in maintaining an arm’s length regulatory process.

When biotechnology products from agriculture hit the market with attributes that, let’s say, reduce cholesterol, increase disease resistance, lower pesticide and herbicide use, and are truly recognised as products that create more specific public benefits, consumer acceptance will rise dramatically.