BENCHMARKS Genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, are flooding the market, often without the knowledge of consumers, while their long-term effects remain unknown.
These three little letters are carrying high hopes for some, but a source of concern for others.
multinationals, supported by countries exporting these products promise a farming without chemicals and leaves dangled a world without hunger. As for critics who talk of "Frankenstein foods", they accuse scientists who play the game to play transgenic gods or to the planet in peril.
Given the uncertainty related to the effects of this new revolution in genetics on health and environment, between supporters and fierce opponents believe, are those who caution remains the watchword. If in Europe the debate has raged for several years, North America, it is just beginning.
The question divides the scientific community, but it is also an important economic and trade issue. Profits are considered to measure the greedy appetite of multinationals like Monsanto or DuPont. The latter had not planned for the outcry in Europe and the decline in exports that would result. So the war started commercial and scientific, and the table set for controversy.
ABC
GMO Genetically Modified Organism (GMO): An individual or a plant or animal, in which man has transferred one or more foreign genes (from another species of bacteria or a virus) to assign a feature whose nature had not endowed, for the moment, we only transfer one gene at a time.
Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA): acid carrier of genetic information.
Biodiversity diversity of living species on the planet.
BT Gene: gene insecticide extracted from a bacterium called Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) that protects the plant (eg cotton or maize) corn borer, a moth whose caterpillar night crops.
Genome: all chromosomes that characterize each species.
Group Miami the six countries who oppose any regulation of trade in GMOs: United States, Canada, Argentina, Australia, Chile and Uruguay.
BT Corn: Corn company Novartis, which has three foreign genes: the BT gene, a gene for herbicide resistance and a gene for resistance to an antibiotic related to penicillin.
Scorer: gene to verify the presence of the introduced gene into the plant they are trying to change, is often a marker gene for resistance to an antibiotic, as in the case of Bt corn.
Genetic pollution: release characteristics of a genetically modified plant another individual by pollen, water or insects.
Precautionary Principle: principle that countries have the right to prohibit the import of GMOs if they have doubts about the safety of these products on human health or impacts on the environment, even in the absence of conclusive scientific evidence.
Sponsor: substance that directs the new gene to taking office.
Protein: chemical substance made by the gene and is the cause of allergies, which can be fatal.
Protocol on Biosafety: agreement reached in Montreal in January 2000 between 139 countries gathered at the summit (the discussions had begun in 1996).
Earth Summit: Summit in Rio, Brazil, in June 1992, after which 126 countries have agreed to safeguard the biodiversity of the planet, the agreement has still not been ratified by the U.S. .
Terminator gene that allows to "program" the sterilization of the seed after the first harvest technology purchased by Monsanto, who chose not to use it before the protests of farmers.
Traceability: can spot the presence of a product, in this case of GMOs throughout the food processing stages from the raw product, such as soybeans, to the more advanced stages of production, that is ie food additives such as corn starch and soybean lecithin, present in 60% of products sold in grocery stores.
Transgenesis: name of the process by which we create GMOs.
PRODUCTS TO great virtue? Currently, food is the main sector using GMOs. In the eyes of multinational companies that manufacture them, the benefits of this new technology are numerous. The U.S. company Monsanto even uses the slogan "Food - Health - Hope to extol the qualities of its genetically modified foods. The genetic revolution permetde make a plant resistant to a herbicide or a pesticide, cold, drought or various diseases. Herbicide resistance of some plants foster optimal growth, since the herbicides kill weeds while leaving the resistant species more room to grow.
Some plants may even produce their own pesticide or herbicide. The Researchers have managed to introduce a kind of potato gene from a bacterium found in soil so that the leaves produce a poison that kills within hours the beetles, commonly called "bugs in potatoes.
Another example is corn QRESD company Novartis, which resists the larva of the moth, the main enemy of the corn. One of the key arguments of the proponents of GM is also in the reduction of herbicides and pesticides, which would benefit the environment. We are talking about the first generation of GMOs, which benefits farmers (reduction of production costs and increased efficiency) and, of course, the multinationals that produce them.
According to them, creating transgenic plants will help alleviate hunger in poor countries, since it will increase productivity. Western consumers will find also his account, for example, with tomatoes that ripen after harvest later and who therefore remain longer. To those who point out the existence of uncertainty, multinationals argue that fifteen years have elapsed between the first tests of GMOs and the marketing of the first commercial species. For them, GMOs are absolutely safe ... 
OF "biological bombs"? Environmentalists fear including the phenomenon of genetic pollution: the herbicide resistant gene that belongs to the modified plant could be transmitted by wind, water or insects, other plants, which in turn become genetically changed. In cases where the gene is transmitted to a plant useful, for example, a transgenic corn to a corn 'normal', environmentalists fear a uniformity of food, which would be a threat to biodiversity. They raise
also likely to make the indestructible weeds or pests to plants that were initially helpful in their ecosystem. The problem is illustrated by studies conducted in Denmark, the genetically modified oilseed rape, including the gene for herbicide resistance was spread to weeds by bees over several kilometers. Environmentalists also fear that genes resistant to herbicides pollute water and soil.
As for the reduced use of herbicides and pesticides, GMO opponents do not. They fear the contrary increased use of these products. Usually in the case of a total herbicide, that is to say, which kills all plants, such as Monsanto's Roundup (who also created the plants resistant to the pesticide it produces), this kind of herbicide is used only when the plant is out of the ground. But with a resistant plant, the temptation to use the herbicide at any stage of production may be stronger, a trend that will be even more pronounced if we end up with weeds also rendered insensible. If this has not yet occurred, the Department of Agriculture of the United States has still found a significant decrease in the amount pesticides used in corn and soybeans genetically modified, but there are such differences from one region to another country it is difficult to draw conclusions.
plant resistance to insects is another source of worry: some believe that these insects could be lost, threatening the biodiversity of the planet. Others rather fear that some species of insects become immune to the toxin produced by plants. In addition, it is possible that insects are not harmful or even that are useful are also destroyed. Environmentalists cite the example of the caterpillar of the monarch butterfly, which died after being fed with genetically modified corn in a laboratory study conducted at Cornell University, United States.
Environmentalists also point out the risks to human health, since it ignores the effects these plants "mutants" on the food chain. They also raise the risk of allergy that would pose for both animals to humans, a plant that contains a gene from a food allergen such as wheat or peanuts. Experience has shown that soy was introduced in which a gene of nuts Grenoble provoked reactions in a person allergic to this kind of nuts. The product has not been marketed.
other hand, the introduction of GMOs in a gene for antibiotic resistance could make individuals resistant to these drugs. It is this fear that makes one of BT corn GMO the most controversial. It introduced a marker gene that is resistant to an antibiotic of the same family as penicillin, to verify the success of transgenesis. However, some hypothesize a possible distribution of this gene in animals and humans. The situation is even more worrying that the effectiveness of antibiotics has decreased in recent years.
WHAT ARE THE FOODS MOST LIKELY TO BE GENETICALLY MODIFIED?
A growing range of products - fruit, vegetables and cereals - which are found in our grocery baskets are GMOs. The most common are genetically modified tomato, canola, soybean, corn and potatoes.
Therefore, all foods containing these ingredients may be made from GMOs. We must therefore consider the tomato sauce, tomato juice, ketchup, soups, minestrone, cream of tomato, pizza, tofu, soy milk, corn grain, corn cereal, chips, etc.. Besides a large number of foods contain food additives made from corn and soybeans, such as soy lecithin, corn starch, and proteins: canned foods, soups, sauces, ice cream , chocolate, canola oil, baby food, margarines, candies, oils, bran, corn syrup, dextrin, meal, etc. ...
It is estimated that 60% of products sold in grocery stores contain GMOs. Difficult, therefore, to escape, especially in Canada, no regulations companies to indicate the presence of GMOs on labels. But some organizations such as Biotech Action Montreal are responsible for informing the public about marquessusceptibles contain GM foods.
EARLY CHRONOLOGY 1973: First transgenic manipulation: U.S. researchers manage to transplant foreign genes into bacteria.
1983: the first genetically modified plant is born.
1986: first attempt at growing a transgenic plant field in Belgium.
1992: Marketing Authorization GMOs in the U.S. and Europe.
1994: Food and Drug Administration of the United States grants its permission to market the Flavr Savr tomato, the first transgenic plant, the fruit of the U.S. company Calgene (now owned by Monsanto), this tomato is however not a real GM, since it has no foreign gene: the researchers were content to prevent the expression of its genes.
1995: GM crops are allowed in Canada.
1996: soybeans from Monsanto, the first consisting of a GMO gene for resistance to a herbicide, arrives in Europe.
1996: BT corn company Novartis is marketed.
1996: start of talks on the Biosafety Protocol under the auspices of the United Nations.
February 1999: the failure of negotiations on biosafety at the Summit of Cartagena, Colombia.
1999: publication of a study of the Rowett Research Institute, Scotland, which concluded the adverse effects of GMOs on rats, the study causes panic in the United Kingdom, and Europe.
Summer 1999: Parliament opts for mandatory labeling of GMOs and adopt a moratorium on GMO seeds and re-approval of genetically modified organisms.
October 1999: the scientific journal The Lancet published research by Dr Arpad Pusztai contested, even if the selection committee considers the methodology unreliable.
January 2000: adoption in Montreal Protocol on Biosafety by 139 countries.
April 2000: mandatory labeling comes into force in Europe for all products containing GMOs in a proportion greater than 1%.
UK: troublemaker
The study biochemist Arpad Pusztai of the Rowett Research Institute, is the first to demonstrate the toxic effects of GMOs. In his experiment, six rats ate potatoes genetically modified to produce a protein that increases resistance to insects and worms, six rats were made to inject the protein in question, and six others were eating apples common ground.
Having observed in rodents that have consumed transgenic potatoes lower immune abnormalities and various organs, the scientist speculates on the possible impact of such use in humans.
In February 1999, its results are the headline in the Guardian newspaper, and alarm the public. Soon, the lab fired him by whom the scandal happened. Soon after, the media learned that the institute received a grant from Monsanto.
Scientists fail to reassure public opinion. It must be said that the case of mad cow disease in the United Kingdom, but also those of chicken contaminated with Dioxyne Belgium, from contaminated blood in France and the bovine growth hormone, have splashed their credibility, since again, they said there was no danger.
few months later, the journal Lancet scientifiqueThe publish controversial research, although its selection committee condemns its methodological flaws. It specifically criticized the researcher to have used a different kind of potatoes as listed in the study. Recently, Dr Pusztai himself has admitted that he extrapolated the results.
But the damage is done, and by March 1999 the British government makes mandatory labeling of GMO products: all trade (grocery, restaurant, cafe, etc..) Sells products made from GMOs without indicate the consumer is liable to fines up to $ 8,000. Quickly, it also prohibits the cultivation of GMOs in the country for a period of three years. The outcry against genetically modified extended to other European countries.
In May, to avoid consumer boycotts, several European supermarket chains and three multinational companies have announced their intention of selling products without GMO. Some manufacturers like Nestle and Danone, even undertake not to use GMOs. The opposition movement is slowly spreading to Australia, Korea, Japan, Mexico and New Zealand.
Some U.S. companies also allow themselves to win by the wave of anti-GMO. Gerber (baby food), Heinz (baby food, ketchup, etc..) And Iams (pet food) inter alia, decided not to use genetically modified products.
In April 2000, the policy of mandatory labeling for products with at least 1% of GMOs enter into force in the countries of the European Union. But purists, advocates a "zero tolerance" calling for labeling all GM products.
This is however far more severe than what is done overseas, where no labeling is required. It must be said that the opposition from environmentalists in Europe is much more structured and more aggressive than here. There, the cultures transgenic literally become their battleground, as opponents of GMOs are not shy to mow the crop.
EXPORTING COUNTRIES
cultivation of GM products is booming for five or six years, to such an extent that the industry is already reaping billions of dollars. The United States has nearly 80% of the 28 million hectares are cultivated where GMOs. American transgenic soybeans represents more than half of the soybeans produced in the United States; transgenic cotton occupies half of the cotton fields, and over a third of the corn has been genetically modified. The United States are part of the Miami group, which opposes any regulation of trade in GMOs, with Argentina, Australia, Chile, Uruguay and Canada.
latter holds for its part, the third largest producer of GM products, behind Argentina. Since 1995, forty of GMOs have been listed in the country.
Transgenic crops occupy 2.8 million hectares, or one tenth of world production. According to the Canadian seed, over 65% of canola plants, over a third of corn plants, a quarter of soybean plants and a quarter of the potatoes grown in countries are GMOs (figures dating from August 1999). In Quebec, according to figures from the Union des producteurs agricoles (UPA) dating from 1998, 2% potatoes and 10% of corn plants are genetically modified, while the proportion of transgenic canola plants between 35 % and 50%.
MULTINATIONAL PRODUCERS
The GM debate is not a scientist, he is also an economic and financial stakes are high. If the multinational producers of GMOs to farmers who promise to "convert" to transgenic agriculture substantial savings, based on increased productivity as well as savings in insecticides and pesticides, they hope to achieve their share of huge profits to the extent of their investments. For example, an estimated $ 1 billion budget devoted to research by Monsanto.
Some critics also see in this industry structure imperialist dominated strongly by the United States, aiming at controlling agriculture across the globe. Currently, a small group of multinational companies control almost the entire world market. They produce all of the transgenic plants and a quarter of GM seeds. Interestingly, they also control nearly 70% of the pesticides market.
· Monsanto (USA)
· DuPont (USA)
· Dow AgroSciences (a subsidiary of Dow Chemical, USA)
· Novartis (Switzerland)
· Zeneca (United Kingdom)
· Aventis (France -Germany)
The U.S. firm Monsanto, a leader in its field, produced for example Round Up herbicide, said total because it kills all plants. She also created Roundup Ready soybeans, Roundup Ready cotton and Roundup Ready canola, made insensitive to this product thanks to genetic engineering. A farmer who buys the transgenic plant is forced to buy the herbicide.
Moreover, genetically modified seeds are protected by patents. Farmers must commit in writing not to retrieve the seeds after their harvest, forcing them to purchase each year.
Multinationals spend a lot of energy to ensure that this is respected, including by visiting the fields of their customers.
From this perspective, Monsanto has purchased the technology behind gene terminator, capable of sterilizing the seed after the first harvest. The multinational declined because of the outcry from farmers. This technology would have an impact primarily from farmers in developing countries, often recovering seeds, lack of money to buy new ones. The company is now working to create genetically modified seeds which will cease after the first harvest to present the characteristic that distinguishes them from a common seed.
SUMMIT OF MONTREAL
Initially, the positions of the Miami group and those of most countries seem irreconcilable. The European Union and developing countries seeking an agreement to govern strictly GM products, while the Miami Group countries wish rather minimal constraints not to hurt their exports.
While representatives of 139 countries are discussing biosecurity, opponents appear in various Canadian cities. After this three-day meeting, delegates finally adopted the Protocol on Biosafety, which regulates trade in GMOs. The summit follows one held in February 1999 in Cartagena, Colombia, which had ended in failure because the exporting countries refused GM labeling of these products. Discussions on Biosafety began in 1996 under the auspices of the United Nations. If the discussions have progressed considerably, it remains to States to ratify the agreement.
Precautionary Principle
Under this principle, countries may refuse to import GMOs in case of doubt on their safety for human health and the environment, even in the absence of scientific evidence. The agreement covers all GMOs that are implanted directly into an ecosystem (seeds, trees and fish farming, for example) as raw materials. But countries that prohibit GMOs on their territory must justify their decision to a central office. The exporters demanded more solid scientific evidence, not just a doubt. Developing countries have also managed to include in the agreement that an importing country may invoke socioeconomic impacts to refuse the import of a product.
Labelling
exporting countries wanted the labeling only affects the seed under the pretext that it is impossible to label commodities because they are mixed with those who are not in the transgenic transport. Others wanted to give their share in the agreement scope much broader, affecting not only seeds but also what constitutes the bulk of exports, such as raw materials, products intended for human or animal consumption and industrial products.
The seeds should be identified. But Canadians and Americans have managed to postpone by two years the decision on raw materials, until we adopt a procedure on their transport, packaging and labeling. Meanwhile, these foods should be labeled "may contain GMOs". Its territory, each country will do what he wants on the use GMOs and derived products, such as mandatory labeling of products.
The role of the World Trade Organization
At the Summit of the World Trade Organization held in Seattle, USA, in December 1999, the European Union showed that it did not submit the issue of GMOs. Exporting countries wanted for their part give primacy to the organization. The preamble of the Biosafety Protocol is tied with the WTO rules. It is therefore not determined whether the organization will be able to judge a dispute between a country that refuses to import GM and exporting country.
WHICH ENDORSES THE GM IN CANADA?
Nationally, four agencies are closely monitoring the GMO issue: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Environment Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Health Canada, whose role is paramount. These organizations do not conduct independent scientific studies on the effects of GMOs.
They rely instead on research by generating companies, which must demonstrate that their GMOs are as nutritious as traditional products and they are not toxiques.Pour some who accuse the government safeguard the interests big business before those of consumers, however, this amounts to putting the fox guard the henhouse ...
While marketing applications are increasing, officials from Health Canada admit to not having the funds and manpower to adequately assess GMOs. Hundreds of transgenic plants waiting to be tested in the field. Once on the market, GMOs are subject to the Food and Drugs Act, which requires labeling when the product is hazardous, as in the case of allergies. In the absence of this risk, the measure is voluntary, unlike the countries of the European Union.
Last June, the Bloc Québécois for his part called for mandatory labeling of GMOs. He also was the first party to express its positionet to demand concrete action from the federal government. In February, at the request of three federal ministers, a scientific committee was formed to study the potential effects of GM foods on human health and the environment. The expert group will also attempt to assess the appropriateness of establishing new policies on GMOs.
Ottawa also announced in March that the parliamentary committee on agriculture will focus on GMOs from mid-May.
By the establishment of new government regulations, Canadian companies are free to draw their own line of their conduct. The subsidiary deMcCain the country for its part, agreed that genetically modified potatoes would fall more in the composition of its products.
genetically modified animals?
In 1997, Dolly, first cloned sheep, has unwittingly opened the debate on genetics and animals. But the famous sheep was not a GM, since it was cloned from an adult sheep cell. The company behind this scientific experiment, PPL Therapeutics, and other companies perform research, however, to transform certain animals "drug factories" that the Anglo-Saxons nicknamed "pharming." Thus, studies are conducted to make sheep that can produce milk containing a human blood factor. PPL has, among others, gave birth to Polly, a transgenic sheep whose milk contains a drug against anemia.
Further studies are also underway to create animals whose organs will be compatible with humans. In this light, the animals become organ banks. Recently, February, a team of scientists announced it had succeeded in genetically modifying the pig organs like the heart and liver, making them less susceptible to rejection by the human. But
transgenic animals may also make their way to our base. For example, in Canada, the United States, Cuba, New Zealand, Israel, the United Kingdom, China and Thailand, the researchers introduced a gene for human or animal growth in fish like salmon , trout and carp. An initiative misperceived by environmentalists, who call these fish "Frankenfish", mainly because the malformations appeared on the first species of transgenic fish.
In Canada, transgenic fish were born in Vancouver, British Columbia, and St. John's, Newfoundland. Through genetic modification, the salmon grow faster by eating less, which appears to promise substantial profits. The Vancouver researchers have modified the structure of a gene to reintroduce salmon in a transgenic coho, which reaches its adult size in two years rather than four or five years. For now, however, these fish are struggling to swim and show aggression when they feed. In Newfoundland, the Canada-US company / F Protein plans to market an Atlantic salmon transgenic for 2001 or 2002, we added a growth gene borrowed from the winter flounder, a fish with cold water. Salmon created grows faster and in colder waters. But these transgenic fish are sterilized to prevent them from recurring.
Environmentalists fear that if they escape from net pens, they transmit their new characteristics to the wild species from which they come. Females may prefer the fish "normal" because they are bigger. They could also eat prey that are not usually threatened.
PROSPECT OF FUTURE
Researchers from around the world are now studying other applications that would benefit consumers. Scientists have also succeeded in the laboratory to increase the content of various vitamins, fruit and vegetables and to introduce material vaccinating. Further research is conducted to provide the medical properties of food, for example to make a vaccine against hepatitis B in a cultivable transgenic potato. We talk Tomato same square for easy storage! Studies are also underway to improve flavor and increase nutritional quality of certain fruit and vegetables.
For example, in Switzerland, scientists announced in early 2000 they had succeeded in creating transgenic rice with higher vitamin A, by introducing genes from bacteria and daffodil. As rice is the most consumed grain in developing countries, such a breakthrough opens up the possibility to alleviate a food shortage which caused millions of victims each year. Researchers interested
also the use of GMOs into industrial production, an avenue that appears to promise substantial economic benefits. The injection of genes from other species could include improving the quality of some products, such as paper and cosmetics. For example, we introduced a gene into rabbit cotton to make it softer.
HOPES AND CONCERNS? Ink certainly has not finished running about GMOs, quietly but quickly arrived on the market without there having been any studies on their long-term effects. If there is no evidence that they constitute a real danger, there is no evidence they are safe. In the future, studies will multiply; one conclude without doubt their benefits while others will take to update their misdeeds. Meanwhile certainties, some are quick to see consumers as guinea pigs. If researchers are promising in the near future foods taste better at higher nutritional quality and cheaper, for now, this is industry and farmers who find their account.
The wave of protest that swept over Europe, however, has reduced exports of GMOs. Some farmers 'traditional', which fear contamination of their products by GM crops and the boycott that could ensue, are already thinking about legal action against farmers who grow GMOs.
Could it be tomorrow three types of plant products as "conventional" chemical-fed, genetically modified and organic foods? What fate will book us to GMOs? And most importantly, who will decide their fate: governments, the giants of the industry or consumers?
The company that supplies the canteen of the British subsidiary of the multinational Monsanto announced in December 1999 that it GM to banished his dishes, to the extent possible. Rather ironic, given that Monsanto has championed GM food ...
In the UK, public opinion was even due to the genetically modified tomato company Zeneca, which had yet captured a significant market share in the three years preceding the outbreak of this whole controversy. The label proudly displayed the letters GM. Organic farmer
convinced Prince Charles himself gets involved and critical multinationals that produce transgenic plants.
Ten years ago, the Japanese company Showa Denko had marketed its version of L-tryptophan, an amino acid counter to combat insomnia, premenstrual pain and hay fever. In one year, 35 consumers have died and 1500 have remained severely disabled. The company was the sole producer of this dietary supplement from a gene modified bacteria. The evidence has not been made that it is the GMO issue that has impacted people's health, but none of the other companies producing L-tryptophan has identified problems.
A contested study: the experience that has fueled the arguments of environmentalists yet had significant shortcomings. The committee of experts of the scientific journal The Lancet in particular, accused the study authors have used a type of potato other than that cited in the research, and have not submitted their findings to other scientists .
A study of a modified oilseed rape conducted in the United Kingdom and Austria by researchers on behalf of Friends of the Earth found that these plants could transmit their genes to wild relatives. On six samples from cultures where the pollen was transported by wind over a distance of about 450 km, two showed the presence of the introduced gene. In the case of study on the spread by bees, a distance of 4.5 km, six samples showed the presence of the gene. Two coho
two years: one having undergone genetic changes reaches its adult size in two years rather than
four or five years.
Some researchers doubt that the results of the laboratory study, which concluded the toxic effects of Bt corn on monarch butterfly caterpillars, are transferable to natural conditions. But these conclusions concern others.
Multinationals argue that they hold the key to solve hunger in the world, a claim refuted by the opponents of GMOs, who accuse them of hypocrisy because, for now, these companies produce mostly luxury foods for Western consumers. In their view, famine is more an issue of equitable distribution of that production ...
Source: Radio-Canada
Reporter: Sophie-Helene Leboeuf
Integrator: Luc Lavigne
0 comments:
Post a Comment