You are on page 1of 37

ADI 08 Hingstman

GMOs Toolbox – p. 1 of 37

Genetically Modified Food Tool Box


Genetically Modified Food Tool Box.............................................................................................................................1
Agricultural Trade Liberalization Promotes GMOs........................................................................................................2
WTO promotes GMOs....................................................................................................................................................3
WTO Promotes GMOS...................................................................................................................................................4
Cartagena Protocol Does Not Stop the WTO from Promoting GMOs...........................................................................5
Free Trade Agreements promote GMOs.........................................................................................................................6
Trade Liberalization Leads to GMOs..............................................................................................................................7
Bilateral Trade Agreements promote GMOs..................................................................................................................8
Biofuel Crop Free Trade Promotes GMOs.....................................................................................................................9
Link Turn: Plan Hurts GMOs -- Domestic Subsidies Pay for GMO Farming.............................................................10
GMO Good- Europe and Mexico..................................................................................................................................11
US Subsidies=> GM food in Brazil..............................................................................................................................12
EU Links.......................................................................................................................................................................13
EU Links ......................................................................................................................................................................14
A2 EU Links.................................................................................................................................................................15
Japan./ South Korea Links............................................................................................................................................17
Consumer Backlash I/l..................................................................................................................................................18
GMO Good Fuel/Food..................................................................................................................................................19
GMO Good- Fuel/Food.................................................................................................................................................20
GMO Good- Productivity.............................................................................................................................................21
GMO Good- Increased Yield........................................................................................................................................22
GMO Good- Environment............................................................................................................................................24
GMO Food- Environment.............................................................................................................................................25
GMO Good- Farmers....................................................................................................................................................26
GMO Good- Developing Countries..............................................................................................................................27
GMO Good- General....................................................................................................................................................28
A2 GM Foods are Unsafe.............................................................................................................................................29
Rejection of GMO-> Starvation....................................................................................................................................30
GMO Bad- Health.........................................................................................................................................................31
GMO Bad- Butterflies...................................................................................................................................................32
GMOs Bad- Destroys Growth.......................................................................................................................................33
GMOs Bad- A2 Key to solve famine............................................................................................................................34
GMOs Bad- Kills R & D...............................................................................................................................................35
GMOs Bad- US EVIL...................................................................................................................................................36
MISC.............................................................................................................................................................................37

Hingstman 16
ADI 08 Hingstman
GMOs Toolbox – p. 2 of 37

Agricultural Trade Liberalization Promotes


GMOs
_____ Every move to remove agricultural support helps GMOs. Agreement on Agriculture
proves this for Monsanto.

Shiva in 2006
Dr. Vandana, Director of The Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Natural Resource Policy, How Ten
Years of WTO have Created an Agrarian Crisis in India, http://www.navdanya.org/articles/articles15.htm

The Agreement on Agriculture (AOA) of the WTO is a rule-based system for trade liberalization of agriculture that
was pushed by the United States in the Uruguay Round of the GATT. However, these rules are the wrong rules for
protecting food security, nature and culture. Instead, they are perfectly shaped for the objective of corporate rule
over our food and agriculture systems.

The AOA rules apply to countries, even though it is not countries for their farmers that engage in global trade in
agriculture but global corporations like Cargill. These firms gain from every rule that marginalizes farmers by
removing support from agriculture. They gain from every rule that deregulates international trade, liberalises
exports and imports, and make restrictions of exports and imports illegal. Market openings through the AOA
are therefore market opening for the Cargills and Monsantos.

The outcome of negotiations for the AOA should not be surprising, because global agribusiness corporations held
tremendous influence over the negotiations. In fact, the U.S delegation was led by Clayton Yeutter, a former Cargill
employee.

______Transnational companies want agricultural trade liberalization


to double GMO penetration in an open world market
Bové in 2005
José, leader and founder of the Peasants Confederation in France (La Confederation Paysanne), which then enlarged
itself to become the peasants' coordinated confederation for all of Europe, Yale Global Online, April 6,
http://www.yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=5529

In the past 15 years of the movement on globalization and agriculture with the WTO, only 10 percent of
world agricultural production is in the open market. We understand that all the big transnational corporations
want it now to be 20 or 30 percent, but of course, farmers all over the world are resisting this because it makes no
sense for their own population. Over 90 percent of food is produced where people live. So we don't understand – and
nobody can explain to us – why we need to have free trade for food; that is going exactly in the wrong direction. So
this is roughly our principle fight.

After that, we talk within Via Campesina about agrarian reform, landless people, about what we call peasant
agriculture.

We also talk about the problems of seeds – the possibility for farmers to use their own seeds – and also the WTO
rules on patents. We are fighting also to have seeds free of patents; that's why we are fighting specially against
GMOs. Even if GMO had no ecological problems or health problems, we would also be against GMOs on this
specific issue: the fact that farmers can't use their own seeds. So these are some of the examples of the troubles
of Via Campesina. This is getting bigger and bigger.
ADI 08 Hingstman
GMOs Toolbox – Trade Links to GMOs

WTO promotes GMOs


____ WTO created to help spread GMOs
Drew in 2006
Pamela, researcher, writer and Executive Producer of the upcoming, documentary film, "Roundup Ready
Nation.November 14, http://pameladrew.newsvine.com/_news/2006/ 11/12/438036-us-must-reform-agricultural-
subsidy-program

What few Americans realize is that the "trade" policies don't help anyone but big business. The WTO is
effectively a marketing organization for Monsanto, et al , created in 1994 along with biotech policy. USAID
works with policy to give food to countries rather then help create food security through agricultural development
and fair trade. It's a system of colonial rule that has expanded, disguised as policy in the National interest but
serves multinational corporate interests.

_____ WTO dispute resolution allows GMOs to spread


Anderson, et al., in 2006
UK campaigner and lecturer Luke Anderson, geneticist Dr Michael Antoniou, and Prof Joe Cummins, Professor
Emeritus of Genetics at the University of Western Ontario, September 1
http://www.saynotogmos.org/ud2006/usept06.php

Due to so-called free trade agreements established by the World Trade Organisation, it may become illegal for
individual countries to maintain higher organic standards than the U.S. So what happens in the U.S. has a
direct knock-on effect on Europe.
ADI 08 Hingstman
GMOs Toolbox – Trade Links to GMOs

WTO Promotes GMOS


WTO facilitates GMOS world wide
Financial Times in 2006
Edward Alden, Jeremy Grant and Raphael Minder, February 7, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/453e4dd8-982d-11da-
816b-0000779e2340.html

The World Trade Organisation ruled yesterday that European restrictions on the introduction of genetically-
modified foods violated international trade rules, finding there was no scientific justification for Europe’s
failure to allow use of new varieties of corn, soybeans and cotton.

The ruling was a victory for Washington in a long-running dispute that has pitted US faith in the benefits of the new
crops against widespread consumer resistance in Europe.

It was immediately welcomed by US farmers and the biotechnology industry, but castigated by environmental
and consumer groups who charged the ruling was a blatant example of international trade rules running roughshod
over democratic decisions aimed at protecting consumer health and safety.

A US trade official, briefing reporters on the confidential decision that was released to the countries involved in the
dispute late yesterday, said: ìWeíre please with the outcome. Weíre not at the end of the road, but itís a significant
milestone.î

WTO bad- leads to the dumping of GM foods on developing countries


Sharma, 2003
Devinder, agricultural scientist, Agriculture Editor of the Indian Express,
Chairs of the New Delhi-based Forum for Biotechnology & Food Security “Gm
Foods: Towards An Apocalypse” July 19, 2003 ZSpace

Coinciding with the frontal attack through the dispute panel, is a seemingly harmless exercise to close ranks
around flawed economic policies. Senior officials of the WTO-IMF-World Bank met at Geneva in May to
deliberate on how to bring greater `coherence' in their policies through ``liberalisation of trade and financial
flows, deregulation, privatisation and budget austerity''. As if loan conditions of the IMF/World Bank that
have forced developing countries to lower their trade barriers, cut subsidies for their domestic food
producers, and eliminate safety nets for rural agriculture were not enough,
the WTO Agreement on Agriculture could be used very effectively to allow the US - and 12 other food
exporting countries - to dump unwanted genetically altered foods, thereby destroying food self-sufficiency
in developing countries and expanding markets for the large grain exporting companies.
ADI 08 Hingstman
GMOs Toolbox – Trade Links to GMOs

Cartagena Protocol Does Not Stop the WTO


from Promoting GMOs
WTO takes sides with the US on GMOs against the Protocol
Carlarne 2007
Cinnamon, Harold Wood Junior Research Fellow in Environmental Law,
Wadham College; Research Fellow, Centre for Socio-Legal Studies, University
of Oxford, Environmental Law, Spring, L/N
The Cartagena Protocol (41) creates a multilateral regime governing the transnational movement of GMOs. (42) The
objective of the Cartagena Protocol is to

contribute to ensuring an adequate level of protection in the field of the safe transfer, handling and use of living
modified organisms resulting from modern biotechnology that may have adverse effects on the conservation and
sustainable use of biological diversity, taking also into account risks to human health, and specifically focusing on
transboundary movements. (43)

The Cartagena Protocol, as a constituent part of the Convention on Biological Diversity, regulates the
movement of GMOs for the primary purpose of biodiversity protection.

The WTO, in contrast, promotes trade liberalization and seeks to diminish or eliminate impediments to free
trade. (44) As demonstrated by the hormones disputes, the WTO discourages the use of any regulations that
limit trade in new products absent clear evidence that the regulations comport with international standards
or are based on sound science and risk assessments.

The aims and objectives of the Cartagena Protocol and the WTO establish potentially conflicting regimes that
the United States and the EU can refer to in support of their disparate GMO policies. Consequently, it is not
surprising that the United States and the EU are teetering on the brink of a long-term dispute over trade in GMOs.

GMOs instigate trade disputes when international players, such as the United States and the EU, enact conflicting
regulatory regimes concerning the testing, use, labeling, identification, and approval procedures required to allow
GMOs and GMO products to reach domestic markets. During the early days of the emerging GMO debate, the EU
enacted a de facto ban on the import and sale of all GMOs. The United States, on the other hand, placed relatively
few restrictions on the approval and sale of GMOs. In fact, GMOs already constitute a large part of U.S. agricultural
production and the United States is the leading exporter of GMO products. n46 Further, while the EU supports its
regulations on the basis of precautionary concerns, the United States insists that bans, strict regulations, and labeling
requirements for GMOs are unnecessary and constitute arbitrary and unjustified impediments to free trade.
The WTO Dispute Settlement Body has only recently issued its first decisions in a GMO dispute. n47 This
decision is too new to have elicited a comprehensive response. However, it stands to reshape and prolong the
current United States-EU GMO dispute. Within the WTO, GMOs are viewed as the "next battlefield" n48 and the
long-anticipated dispute is quickly taking concrete form.

The WTO supports GM food despite safety protocols


Sharma, 2003
Devinder, agricultural scientist, Agriculture Editor of the Indian Express,
Chairs of the New Delhi-based Forum for Biotechnology & Food Security “Gm
Foods: Towards An Apocalypse” July 19, 2003 ZSpace

The overt and covert machinations to push unhealthy and risky GM foods had actually begun a decade ago. The US
has so far opposed the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, which has been signed by over 100 countries and was
intended to ensure through agreed international rules and regulations that countries have the necessary information
to make informed choices about GM foods and crops. With the WTO appearing on the scene, the Cartagena Protocol
has become meaningless. Since the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) has not been ratified by the US, it is
not under any obligation to follow
the Biosafety Protocol.
ADI 08 Hingstman
GMOs Toolbox – Trade Links to GMOs

Free Trade Agreements promote GMOs


_____ FTAA (Free Trade Area of the Americas) will spread GMO use
Global Exchange in 2007
membership-based international human rights organization dedicated to promoting social, economic and
environmental justice around the world, October 28, http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/ftaa/topten.html

8. The Agreement Will Spread the Use of GMOs

US trade negotiators are trying to use the FTAA to force other countries to accept the use of genetically
modified organisms (GMOs). But environmental groups warn that these technologies haven't been adequately
tested, and food security experts say GMOs could increase hunger in poor nations. Farmers have traditionally saved
their seeds from year to year, but as multinational corporations patent GM seeds these farmers will be forced to pay
for seeds, pushing them further into dependency.
ADI 08 Hingstman
GMOs Toolbox – Trade Links to GMOs

Trade Liberalization Leads to GMOs

Trade Liberalization necessitates GM food to be used world wide


Star Tribune 2008
“Food: a resource to manage wisely Minnesota CEOs lead push to grow, use
food more efficiently.”
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/editorials/25633284.html?location_refer=
Editorials:highlightModules:2 July 20th 2008
The big takeaway message was both heartening and sobering. Yes, we can feed the world. As Cargill's Page
put it, with the globe's current calorie production, we are the farthest we've ever been from famine. But the
luxurious food era that Americans have grown accustomed to -- a time of too-large portions and little heed
for waste -- has come to an end. Food will continue to be plentiful, its cost manageable. But we can no
longer take it for granted. It has returned to what it always has been throughout human history: a resource
to conserve and use wisely.
These CEOs are leading the charge into this new era. At a macro level, they are using their clout to
champion technology -- for example, with genetically modified seeds -- to increase crop yields. And they
are advocating to let free markets work without government interference to keep prices down.
ADI 08 Hingstman
GMOs Toolbox – Trade Links to GMOs

Bilateral Trade Agreements promote GMOs


____ US/India trade initiatives spread GMOs
Shiva in 2006
Dr. Vandana, Director of The Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Natural Resource Policy,
http://www.ifg.org/pdf/WTO%20is%20Dead.pdf, July 26

The willingness of the U.S. to allow the Doha Round negotiations to grind to a halt by showing 
inflexibility in offering to reduce distorting farm subsidies in exchange for increased market access is not 
because agricultural market access is no longer of interest to the U.S. The U.S. does not have to give up 
anything multilaterally because it is getting market access bilaterally, often with “non­agreements” 
like the U.S.–India Knowledge Initiative in Agriculture, which is promoting GMOs, agricultural 
imports and the entry of U.S. grant Wal­mart in Indian retail. Monsanto, Wal­mart and Archer 
Daniels Midland (ADM) are on the board of the U.S. India Agriculture Initiative. . . .   WTO might 
be on life support, but “free trade” is alive and kicking. Bilateral and unilateral initiatives are the new 
 avatars of globalisation and free trade .  And it is these avatars we must challenge to stop corporate rule, 
while WTO hangs between intensive care and the crematorium. 

US India trade liberalism spread GMOS


Tikait, et al., in 2008
Mahender Singh Tikait, President, Bhartiya Kissan Union, India; Ajmer Singh Lakhowal, State President, BKU
Punjab; Jagdish Singh, State President, BKU Madhya Pradesh; Gurnam Singh, State President, BKU Haryana;
Yudhvir Singh, Spokesman, Indian Coordination Committee of Farmers Movement, July 17,
http://www.viacampesina.org/main_en/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=582&Itemid=26

The increased trade liberalisation has resulted in import of genetically engineered (GM) foods and 
seeds. The UPA government has allowed import of processed food containing genetically modified 
organisms (GMOs) without having any regulatory mechanism as well as exempted them from 
mandatory regulatory approval. Several imported foods have been found to be containing GMOs 
and are selling opening in Indian market without any regulation and testing. The UPA government 
also permitted large­scale field trials of Bt Brinjal, the first GM food crop in India, while several other 
GM crops are on the verge of being released for commercial cultivation. In order to protect our biological 
diversity, we demand a complete ban on commercial release as well as imports of all GM crops, foods 
and seeds in the country. Instead of promoting GMOs, the government must support ecological 
agriculture and provide incentives for growing toxic free foods through organic farming.
ADI 08 Hingstman
GMOs Toolbox – Trade Links to GMOs

Biofuel Crop Free Trade Promotes GMOs


____ Transnationals want to use biofuels to spread GMOs in
agriculture
Ho in 2007
Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, director, Institute of Science in Society, London, http://www.i-sis.org.uk/NoToGMOs.php
Briefing to European Parliament, Scientists for a GM Free Europe, 12 June

And beware of GM bioenergy crops for producing biofuels. Biofuels are not ‘carbon neutral’ They compete
directly with food for feedstock like maize, soyabean, oilseed rape, sugarcane etc., sending food prices sky-
high. They also compete for land to grow them, causing large swathes of tropical rainforests to be razed to
the ground, replaced by plantations, and in the process, sending extra tonnes of carbon dioxide into the
atmosphere, accelerating global warming [11] (Biofuels: Biodevastation, Hunger & False Carbon Credits,
SiS 33).

George Bush has set a target of 20 percent biofuel substitution for petroleum by 2017[12] (The BP-Berkeley
Energy BioScience Institute, SiS 34). EU says 10 percent of transport fuel must come from biofuels by 2020
[13].

There is also growing pressure to commercialise the numerous GM tree species that have been modified with
a variety of transgenes, as GM trees have been widely proposed for plantations on the mistaken assumption
that they can offset carbon emissions, and more so, qualify for subsidies under the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean
Development Mechanism [14] (Moratorium on all GM Trees and Ban on GM Forest Trees, ISIS Report).

The biotech industry has already insinuated itself onto the biofuels bandwagon [13], hoping to
overcome the stiff public resistance to GM crops by giving GM crops a green wash. It also hopes to
sidestep the regulatory hurdle on grounds that safety does not matter because GM bioenergy crops are
not used as food. But GM plantations and biofuel crops will exacerbate existing problems with GM
crops and make GM contamination much more likely.
ADI 08 Hingstman
GMOs Toolbox

Link Turn: Plan Hurts GMOs -- Domestic


Subsidies Pay for GMO Farming
_____ Corn subsidies save BT Corn farmers from bankruptcy

World Wildlife Fund Switzerland in 2005


GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS (GMOs): A DANGER TO SUSTAINABLE
AGRICULTURE
May,
http://assets.panda.org/downloads/gmosadangertosustainableagriculture.pdf
Introduced in 1996, Bt corn now accounts for more than 20% of the corn area. Growers have spent
about US $659 million on Bt corn price premium since 1996: this investment, according to Benbrook,
has only delivered $567 million in benefits (Benbrook, 2002b). This analysis seeks to understand
whether farmers have succeeded in compensating the 35% jump in their seed expenditures
provoked by the introduction of the new Bt variety. Simultaneously, Bt corn market price has fallen
drastically from $2.79 per bushel in 1996 to below $2.00 since 1998. Those diverging evolutions
between rising production costs and declining market prices have provoked drastic losses for corn
growers (more than $100 per acre since 1999). Only enormous public subsidies (about $8 billion a year since
1999) helped to save many growers from bankruptcy. This makes Benbrook (2002b) write:
in 1996, corn growers earned $1.48 billion in profits on sales of $26.7 billion (i.e. a profit margin of
5.5%). By 2000, the total losses amounted to $7.68 billion.

10
ADI 08 Hingstman
GMOs Toolbox

GMO Good- Europe and Mexico


GMOs good- Round Up Soy beans popular in Mexico and the EU and will gain worldwide
acceptance by 09.
PR Newswire, 2008
“Monsanto Announces Key Regulatory Approvals for Roundup Ready 2 Yield™ Soybeans;
Product Remains on Track for 2009 Launch”, July 24th 2008.

ST. LOUIS, July 24 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Monsanto Company (NYSE: MON) announced today that it
has received regulatory approvals for Roundup Ready 2 Yield™ soybeans in Mexico, Australia and New
Zealand. In addition, the company noted the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has issued a positive
scientific opinion concluding Roundup Ready 2 Yield is safe for import as food or feed. Roundup Ready 2
Yield soybeans are the second generation of the popular Roundup Ready® technology in soybeans and
offer increased yields.

"These regulatory decisions by Mexico and Europe represent significant steps forward in delivering
Roundup Ready 2 Yield soybeans to our customers," according to Brett Begemann, Monsanto's executive
vice president of global commercial business. "Farmers have used Roundup Ready® soybeans for more
than 10 years to achieve unsurpassed weed control. Roundup Ready 2 Yield soybeans have increased
yields, and will advance farmers' ability to meet the world's growing food, feed and fuel needs."

11
ADI 08 Hingstman
GMOs Toolbox

US Subsidies=> GM food in Brazil

Brazilian Farmers forced to use GM produce to compete with heavily


subsidized US crops, even though they are considered illegal
Whitman, 2000
Deborah “Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?” April 2000)
In Japan, the Ministry of Health and Welfare has announced that health testing of GM foods will be
mandatory as of April 200136, 37. Currently, testing of GM foods is voluntary. Japanese supermarkets are
offering both GM foods and unmodified foods, and customers are beginning to show a strong preference
for unmodified fruits and vegetables.

Some states in Brazil have banned GM crops entirely, and the Brazilian Institute for the Defense of
Consumers, in collaboration with Greenpeace, has filed suit to prevent the importation of GM crops39,.
Brazilian farmers, however, have resorted to smuggling GM soybean seeds into the country because they
fear economic harm if they are unable to compete in the global marketplace with other grain-exporting
countries.

GM Foods Illegal in Brazil


Paarlberg, 2000.
Professor of Political Science at Wellesley College and an associate at the
Weatherhead Center for International Affairs at Harvard UniversityForeign
Affairs. New York: May/Jun 2000. Vol. 79, Iss. 3; pg. 24,

In Brazil, farmers who had hoped to plant herbicide-resistant soybeans in 1999 were blocked at the last
moment when a federal judge granted an injunction filed by Greenpeace and a Brazilian consumer institute
on grounds of a possible threat to the Brazilian environment. Higher courts are now reviewing the case, but
a ban on planting remains in place. Farmers eager to get GM soybean seeds have been smuggling them in
from Argentina, but the state government of Rio Grande do Sul, partly in hopes of being able to offer GM-
free products to customers in Europe and Japan, has threatened to burn their fields and jail any farmers
found to be growing GM soybeans. Greenpeace has thrown its weight behind efforts to keep Rio Grande do
Sul a "GM-free zone."

12
ADI 08 Hingstman
GMOs Toolbox

EU Links
The EU refuses to embrace GM foods
Whitman, 2000
Deborah “Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?” April 2000)
In Europe, anti-GM food protestors have been especially active. In the last few years Europe has
experienced two major foods scares: bovine spongiform encephalopathy (mad cow disease) in Great Britain
and dioxin-tainted foods originating from Belgium. These food scares have undermined consumer
confidence about the European food supply, and citizens are disinclined to trust government information
about GM foods. In response to the public outcry, Europe now requires mandatory food labeling of GM
foods in stores, and the European Commission (EC) has established a 1% threshold for contamination of
unmodified foods with GM food products40.

EU Efforts to avoid GM foods consign African to starvation and


poverty and stunt worldwide growth
Sharma, 2003
Devinder, agricultural scientist, Agriculture Editor of the Indian Express,
Chairs of the New Delhi-based Forum for Biotechnology & Food Security “Gm
Foods: Towards An Apocalypse” July 19, 2003 ZSpace

Accusing Europe of undercutting efforts to feed starving Africans by blocking the use of genetically
modified crops which could 'dramatically' boost productivity, the American administration fired the first
missile by formally announcing to launch a complaint with the WTO against the European Union for its
five-year ban on approving new biotech crops. This has set the stage for an international showdown over an
increasingly controversial issue.

"Our partners in Europe are impeding this effort. They have blocked all new biocrops because of
unfounded, unscientific fears," Bush said. "This has caused many African nations to avoid investing in
biotechnologies for fear that their products will be shut out of European markets. European governments
should join -- not hinder -- the great cause of ending hunger in Africa."

The US Trade Representative Mr Robert Zoellick added that the European policy is illegal, harming the US
economy, stunting the growth of the biotech industry and contributing to increased starvation in the
developing world.

13
ADI 08 Hingstman
GMOs Toolbox

EU Links
Reassurances and studies that show GM foods are safe have no
impact on European Consumers, they will never accept GM foods.
Paarlberg, 2000.
Professor of Political Science at Wellesley College and an associate at the
Weatherhead Center for International Affairs at Harvard UniversityForeign
Affairs. New York: May/Jun 2000. Vol. 79, Iss. 3; pg. 24,
We have not been able to find any evidence of harm. We are satisfied that all products currently on the
market have been rigorously screened by the regulatory authorities, that they continue to be monitored, and
that no evidence of harm has been detected. We have concluded that all the GM food so far on the market
in this country is safe for consumption.

Yet such expert reassurances are discounted by European consumers, distrustful since the 1996 "mad cow
disease" scare. That crisis undermined consumer trust in expert opinion after U.K. public health officials
gave consumers what proved to be a false assurance that there was no danger in eating beef from diseased
animals. Although mad cow disease had nothing to do with the genetic modification of food, it generated
new consumer anxieties about food safety at precisely the moment in 1996 when U.S.-grown GM soybeans
were first being cleared for import into the EU.

Exploiting such anxieties, a number of third parties, including nongovernmental organizations (NGOS),
quickly stepped into the fray. Greenpeace and other European activist groups that had previously struggled
against nuclear power and the use of various man-made chemicals (especially chlorine, which Greenpeace
had tried to label "the Devil's chemical") inflamed consumer phobias Of GM foods. In Britain, Prince
Charles (a self-described organic farmer) and Paul McCartney joined the chorus. In France-where food is
never just food-a broad coalition of farmers, labor unions, environmentalists, and communists launched
attacks against not only GM food but also McDonald's, imported beef grown with (non-GM) hormones,
CocaCola, and various other threats to what they called French "culinary sovereignty." In Germany, GM
opponents drew dark parallels between the genetic manipulation of food and their country's earlier lapse
into human eugenics.

14
ADI 08 Hingstman
GMOs Toolbox

A2 EU Links
EU supports GM foods, despite concerns and public outcry
PANUPS 2007. “Pesticide Action Network Updates Service Weekly Update”
http://www.panna.org/resources/panups November 22 2007
Activists expose UK's secret GMO subsidies: Former Prime Minister Tony Blair repeatedly assured the
public that the government was "neither for nor against" genetically engineered (GE) foods. Now Friends
of the Earth (FoE) and GE Freeze have unearthed secret emails showing otherwise. The Independent
reports that these "startling internal documents" reveal that agricultural biotech companies received
subsidies worth "at least £50m [US$102,764,000] a year" while organic farming received only £1.6 million
[$3,288,448]. FoE's Kirtana Chandrasekaran called the support for GE food "out of all proportion to its
non-existence benefits." The Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) called its
support a response to "consumer demand" (despite government surveys that found 86 percent of the public
reject GE foods). Internal emails showed DEFRA worked closely with biotech giant BASF to approve the
planting of 450,000 GE potatoes in the UK. DEFRA officials repeatedly asked BASF if the agreement "is
workable for you" and redrafted rulings "in response to your concerns." Other documents revealed a
government promise to continue funding research on GE crops even in the case of "a Europe-wide ban.

15
ADI 08 Hingstman
GMOs Toolbox

EU Links
Public opinion dictates Government Action on GM foods in EU
Paarlberg, 2000.
Professor of Political Science at Wellesley College and an associate at the
Weatherhead Center for International Affairs at Harvard UniversityForeign
Affairs. New York: May/Jun 2000. Vol. 79, Iss. 3; pg. 24,

These well-publicized campaigns forced significant corporate and government concessions in Europe. In
April 1998, without scientific evidence of any harm from GM foods, Brussels stopped approving new GM
crops for use in or import into the Eu. This has meant a de facto ban on all corn imports from the United
States (worth roughly $200 million annually), since bulk shipments might contain some GM varieties not
yet approved. The Eu also enacted a GM food labeling provision in 1998, requiring its 15 member states to
begin marking all packaged foods that contain GM corn and soy The United Kingdom went even further,
requiring that restaurants, caterers, and bakers either list all GM ingredients or face fines of up to $8,400.
To avoid consumer boycotts and lawsuits brought by activist groups, a growing number of food companies,
retail stores, and fast-food chains (including both Burger King and McDonald's) in Europe pledged in 1999
not to use GM ingredients-at least where it could be avoided.

16
ADI 08 Hingstman
GMOs Toolbox

Japan./ South Korea Links


Consumer backlash to GM foods in Japan, South Korea and Australia
Paarlberg, 2000.
Professor of Political Science at Wellesley College and an associate at the
Weatherhead Center for International Affairs at Harvard UniversityForeign
Affairs. New York: May/Jun 2000. Vol. 79, Iss. 3; pg. 24,

This backlash began to spread in 1999 to food-importing nations outside of Europe. Japan, South Korea,
Australia, and New Zealand made plans to begin mandatory labeling for some transgenic foods, including
heavily imported products such as GM soybeans and GM corn if intended for human consumption (as
opposed to animal feed). Japan and South Korea together represent an $11.3 billion annual market for U.S.
agriculture, and U.S. officials have worried that protectionist farm interests lie behind these labeling moves.
But consumer anxiety is once again the more powerful factor at play Responding to such fears, Japan's
Kirin Brewery Company recently announced that starting in zoos it would use only non-GM cornstarch for
its beer; Kirin's competitor, Sapporo Breweries, made a similar announcement the next day.
EUROPE'S CONSUMER-LED BACKLASH againSt GM crops put U.S. officials in an awkward spot.
Usually the United States urges Europe and Japan to be more market-oriented in their food and agricultural
policies; now, consumer-led market forces obliged the United States to adjust. U.S. officials have opposed
the mandatory labeling of GM products. But the U.S. farm sector is so heavily export-oriented (U.S.
farmers export more than 25 percent of the corn, soybean, and cotton they produce, and more than 50
percent of wheat and rice) that foreign pressure is prompting an informal movement in the other direction.
The Archer Daniels Midland Company, a prominent U.S.-based soy-processing and export firm, announced
in 1999 that it would henceforth ask U. S. farmers to deliver their GM and non-cNr soybeans in separate
batches so wDM could offer "GM free" products to consumers in Europe and Japan. Two large U.S.-based
baby-food companies, Gerber and H.J. Heinz, announced in 1999 that they would soon switch to non-GM
ingredients-not because of any new evidence that transgenic ingredients were unsafe, but out of fear of a
Greenpeace-led boycott. Frito-Lay, the nation's major snack-food provider, followed suit, announcing that it
would no longer use GM corn. In November 1999 several members of Congress introduced a "Genetically
Engineered Food Right to Know" bill that would require labels on any food containing at least 0.10 percent
GM ingredients. The Grocery Manufacturers of America opposed this measure but supported stronger
consultation requirements between food companies and the FDA, hoping to boost consumer confidence.

17
ADI 08 Hingstman
GMOs Toolbox

Consumer Backlash I/l


Consumer Backlash to GM foods dooms international cooperation,
US insistence on GM food weakens them internationally
Paarlberg, 2000.
Professor of Political Science at Wellesley College and an associate at the
Weatherhead Center for International Affairs at Harvard UniversityForeign
Affairs. New York: May/Jun 2000. Vol. 79, Iss. 3; pg. 24,

In the meantime, the European and Asian backlash against U.S.-grown GM crops could generate sharp
conflicts in several international settings, including the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the
Convention on Biological Diversity (CSD). Within the WTO, the Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS)
Agreement permits nations to restrict imports in the name of health or environmental protection. But an
unresolved question is whether governments can restrict imports under conditions of scientific uncertainty,
on a precautionary basis. The SPS agreement allows import restrictions only on a provisional basis while
governments seek additional information.

The EU is trying to weaken this WTO requirement. In January 2000, it managed to insert language
supporting its precautionary principle into the text of the new Protocol on Biosafety in the CBD.
Hammered out by environmental rather than trade ministers, this protocol was drafted specifically to
govern international trade in transgenic organisms, and it now states in several places that a "lack of
scientific certainty due to insufficient relevant scientific information and knowledge" should not prevent
states from taking precautionary import actions. The protocol then goes on to oblige exporters of living
modified organisms meant for environmental release (such as plants or seeds) to provide prior notification
of relevant biosafety information and to solicit an informed consent agreement from importers.

The United States fought to include language in the protocol that would place it under the authority of
WTO rules, but was blocked from doing so by the Eu and most developing countries. State Department
officials reluctantly accepted the final terms of the protocol, partly with the hope that it might calm
consumer and importer fears if the United States and the Eu were seen to agree on the issue. By accepting
the protocol, the United States also avoided further isolation within the CBD (to which Washington is not
yet a formal party, since the Senate has failed to ratify it). But this acquiescence may have weakened
America's hand on future GM trade issues within the WTO.

18
ADI 08 Hingstman
GMOs Toolbox

GMO Good Fuel/Food


Prevents Fuel for food trade off
Cameron, Doug. 2008
Doug, “Agribuisness Group Forms to Protect Ethanol Subsidies.” Wall Street
Journal July 25th 2008.

The Alliance for Abundant Food and Energy -- which includes seed makers Monsanto Co. and DuPont Co.,
as well as farm-gear maker Deere & Co. -- wants to spread its belief that renewable fuels won't cut into
food supplies if new technologies, such as genetically modified crops, are used to their fullest. The group is
also working hard to protect government subsidies for ethanol production.

GM agriculture is key to eliminate food/fuel debate and meet


demand for both
Alliance for Abundant Food and Enery. “Alliance for Abundant Food and
Energy to highlight promise of Agriculture to sustain ably meet food and
energy needs” foodandenergy.org July 24th 2008

Washington, D.C., July 24, 2008 – Today, leaders from across the agriculture value chain joined together to
form the Alliance for Abundant Food and Energy, an alliance designed to promote their understanding that
through innovation, agriculture can sustainably meet the growing global demand for food and renewable
forms of energy. Founding members of the Alliance include the Archer Daniels Midland Company, DuPont,
John Deere, Monsanto and the Renewable Fuels Association.

“The Alliance for Abundant Food and Energy will underscore the role that agriculture can play in
supporting our food and energy needs,” said Mark Kornblau, executive director, Alliance for Abundant
Food and Energy. “With growing global demand for grain, it’s critically important that policy leaders start
thinking about how we can grow our way to a solution. Innovation is part of the American DNA – through
greater support for agricultural innovation, we can produce enough crops to supply both our food and
energy needs worldwide.”

19
ADI 08 Hingstman
GMOs Toolbox

GMO Good- Fuel/Food


Food/Fuel debates distort the connected nature of production and
ignores agriculture based solutions.
Alliance for Abundant Food and Enery. “Alliance for Abundant Food and
Energy to highlight promise of Agriculture to sustain ably meet food and
energy needs” foodandenergy.org July 24th 2008
Recently, critics have tried to frame the debate as an “either/or” decision, making people feel they must
choose between food and energy security. The Alliance believes this is a false choice that ignores both the
capabilities of agriculture and our nation’s history of using innovation to solve our problems. The Alliance
realizes both are possible – and can be accomplished using less land and fewer resources than generally
understood.

The companies forming the Alliance are experts in agriculture, from planted seed to market sale, putting
them in a unique position to address this current concern. Thanks in part to their research and other efforts,
agricultural productivity, particularly in the United States, has increased consistently for the past 100 years.
Families around the world have benefitted from these innovations as well. Over the last decade, the world’s
population grew 13 percent, while farmers were able to meet increased needs using only six percent more
land.

GM Foods promise to benefit the developing countires- and even the


playing field
Paarlberg, 2000.
Professor of Political Science at Wellesley College and an associate at the
Weatherhead Center for International Affairs at Harvard UniversityForeign
Affairs. New York: May/Jun 2000. Vol. 79, Iss. 3; pg. 24,

IF PROPERLY EXPLOITED, the GM crop revolution will have lifechanging---and even live-saving-
implications in developing countries. Food-production requirements are increasing rapidly in the tropics
due to population growth. Yet agriculture there is lagging, in part because of poor soil; extremes of
moisture, heat, and drought; and a plenitude of pests and diseases that attack animals and crops. Poor
farmers in tropical Asia and Africa currently lose much of their crop production every year (often more than
30 percent) to insects and plant disease.

Here is where modern transgenic technology carries special promise for the tropics: it can engineer plants
and animals with highly specific pest and disease resistances. For example, poor farmers in Kenya today
lose 15-45 percent of their maize to stem borers and other insects. If they could plant maize seeds
engineered to contain Bt, a pest-killing toxin, they could reduce their losses without reliance on chemical
sprays. Similarly, transgenic virus-- resistant potatoes could help small-scale farmers in Mexico who
currently suffer substantial crop damage. And a World Bank panel has estimated that transgenic
technologies could increase rice production in Asia by 10-25 percent within the next decade. Without such
gains, increasing demand from a growing population could push the price of rice beyond the reach of the
poor.

20
ADI 08 Hingstman
GMOs Toolbox

GMO Good- Productivity

GM Foods key to innovation, productivity, and quality in food and


energy, to meet growing world need
Alliance for Abundant Food and Enery. “Alliance for Abundant Food and
Energy to highlight promise of Agriculture to sustain ably meet food and
energy needs” foodandenergy.org July 24th 2008
“The history of agriculture demonstrates constant innovation to meet the world’s needs” said Todd Werpy,
vice president, Research, ADM. “For more than a century, ADM has played a vital role in the chain of
innovation, making hundreds of food, feed, fuel and chemical products from renewable crops. Increased
farm productivity, combined with novel and improved processing technologies, will allow agriculture to
meet our food needs and make a critical contribution to our energy future.”

“Agriculture mechanization was among the most important breakthroughs to mankind in the 20th century,”
said J.B. Penn, Chief Economist, Deere & Company. “Now, as we face the challenge of better feeding and
fueling the world, the technology designed into machinery, coupled with the ingenuity of the world's
farmers, will have just as significant an impact.”

“Agriculture must be higher on our agenda in a world of increasing food and energy demands and limited
resources,” said Jim Borel, Group Vice President, DuPont. “While there is no single solution to this issue,
technology advancements have, over time, contributed greatly, to increased food productivity and
nutritional quality, while limiting the amount of new land required for cultivation. And we’re only just
beginning to realize the benefit technology innovations can and will have on energy production.”

“Now more than ever before, agriculture is at the intersection of some of the toughest challenges we face
on the planet including both our food and energy needs,” said Robert T. Fraley, Ph.D., chief technology
officer of Monsanto. “With the world’s population expected to reach nine billion people by 2050, the
agriculture industry must act together to meet the needs for increased food, fiber and energy and while
preserving our environment’s resources such as water.”

GM Foods worth 210 billion in income gains worldwide


Monsanto, 2008. “Agricultural Biotechnology”
http://www.monsanto.com/biotech-
gmo/asp/globalOutlook.asp#gmCropsSafe.

Economists predict full adoption of GM crops globally would result in income gains of US$210 billion per
year within the next decade, with the largest potential advantages of genetically modified foods and crops
occurring in developing countries at a rate of 2.1 percent gross national product per year.

21
ADI 08 Hingstman
GMOs Toolbox

GMO Good- Increased Yield


Round up allows for increased yields
PR Newswire, 2008
“Monsanto Announces Key Regulatory Approvals for Roundup Ready 2 Yield™ Soybeans;
Product Remains on Track for 2009 Launch”, July 24th 2008.

In four years of testing, Roundup Ready 2 Yield soybeans have demonstrated a consistent yield advantage
of 7 percent to 11 percent when compared with its predecessor, Roundup Ready soybeans. The four-year
average yield increase of Roundup Ready 2 Yield over its first-generation counterpart was 9 percent.

Monsanto's Roundup Ready 2 Yield soybeans will be introduced on 1 million to 2 million acres for the
2009 season as part of a controlled commercial release, followed by a large-scale product launch of 5
million to 6 million acres scheduled for 2010.

GMOs solve food shortages


Whitman, 2000
Deborah “Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?” April 2000)
The world population has topped 6 billion people and is predicted to double in the next 50 years. Ensuring
an adequate food supply for this booming population is going to be a major challenge in the years to come.
GM foods promise to meet this need in a number of ways:

# Pest resistance Crop losses from insect pests can be staggering, resulting in devastating financial loss for
farmers and starvation in developing countries. Farmers typically use many tons of chemical pesticides
annually. Consumers do not wish to eat food that has been treated with pesticides because of potential
health hazards, and run-off of agricultural wastes from excessive use of pesticides and fertilizers can poison
the water supply and cause harm to the environment. Growing GM foods such as B.t. corn can help
eliminate the application of chemical pesticides and reduce the cost of bringing a crop to market4, 5.

GM Food Good- Key to conservation and health


Monsanto, 2008. “Agricultural Biotechnology”
http://www.monsanto.com/biotech-
gmo/asp/globalOutlook.asp#gmCropsSafe.

Each year, global population grows by more than 70 million, and agriculture is required to produce
more food with limited land and water resources. Scientists believe biotechnology holds great potential to
help farmers produce more food — and healthier food — with fewer resources. Over the next decade,
biotechnology promises to deliver products that address land and resource limitations, such as improved
drought tolerance, saline tolerance and increased yields. The research also will deliver products with direct
consumer benefits such as enhanced nutrition, convenience and taste. For example: o Food
ingredients in which the major allergenic proteins are modified or eliminated. o Rice enriched with
beta-carotene, which stimulates production of vitamin A. Vitamin A deficiency causes blindness in 500,000
children and up to 2 million deaths annually. o Plants that can tolerate stress from harsh environments

22
ADI 08 Hingstman
GMOs Toolbox

— such as arid or saline soils, cold environments or low nutrient availability — and continue to produce
food.

23
ADI 08 Hingstman
GMOs Toolbox

GMO Good- Environment


GMO good- they prevent the excessive use of pesticides that
destroy the environment
Whitman, 2000
Deborah “Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?” April 2000)
# Herbicide tolerance For some crops, it is not cost-effective to remove weeds by physical means such as
tilling, so farmers will often spray large quantities of different herbicides (weed-killer) to destroy weeds, a
time-consuming and expensive process, that requires care so that the herbicide doesn't harm the crop plant
or the environment. Crop plants genetically-engineered to be resistant to one very powerful herbicide could
help prevent environmental damage by reducing the amount of herbicides needed. For example, Monsanto
has created a strain of soybeans genetically modified to be not affected by their herbicide product Roundup
®6. A farmer grows these soybeans which then only require one application of weed-killer instead of
multiple applications, reducing production cost and limiting the dangers of agricultural waste run-off7.

# Disease resistance There are many viruses, fungi and bacteria that cause plant diseases. Plant biologists
are working to create plants with genetically-engineered resistance to these diseases8, 9.

GMOs good Reduce Pesticides and environmental destruction


Monsanto, 2008. “Agricultural Biotechnology”
http://www.monsanto.com/biotech-
gmo/asp/globalOutlook.asp#gmCropsSafe.

* Farmers have decreased pesticide applications by 289,000 metric tons. Consumers consistently rank a
reduction in pesticide applications as the most valuable benefit of plant biotechnology — which is
important since farmers have significantly reduced pesticide sprayings, while conserving the water and fuel
otherwise depleted with tillage or plowing. The planting of biotech crops has reduced the "environmental
footprint" of cotton, corn, soy and canola by 15.5 percent, as calculated using an established environmental
index quotient (EIQ) that compares the potential impacts of pesticides applied in a conventional field to a
field planted with a biotech crop. o Since 1996, the use of GM soybeans has been one of the largest
contributors to reduced pesticide applications, accounting for cumulative reductions of 41,000 metric tons.
o YieldGard corn rootworm is expected to eliminate one million plastic containers, 68,845 gallons of
aviation fuel, 5 million gallons of water used in insecticide formulations, 5 million pounds of insecticide
active ingredient, and 5 million gallons of diesel fuel per year. o Chinese farmers decreased pesticide
applications on insect-protected (Bt) cotton by 57 percent, with reductions in reported pesticide poisonings.
o Indian farmers averaged 3.68 pesticide applications in conventional cotton, compared to 0.62 applications
in Bt cotton. o Annual reductions of 46 million pounds of pesticide have been recorded in the United
States on four primary crops. o Australian farmers used 50 percent fewer pesticide applications on Bt
cotton. *

24
ADI 08 Hingstman
GMOs Toolbox

GMO Food- Environment

GMO’s Good- Sustainable Faming key to avoid tilling, soil erosion


and other destructive farming processes and protect bio-diversity.
Monsanto, 2008. “Agricultural Biotechnology”
http://www.monsanto.com/biotech-
gmo/asp/globalOutlook.asp#gmCropsSafe.

GM crops benefit the environment and conserve natural habitat for wildlife. One of the advantages of
gentecially modified foods and crops is the reduced need for tillage or plowing, allowing farmers to adopt
conservation or “no-till” practices. In the United States alone, these practices and other conservation
measures are reducing soil erosion by 1 billion tons and saving consumers $3.5 billion in water treatment
costs annually. Biotech crops also have played an important role in boosting the productivity of existing
farmland — enough to allow for the protection of at least 400 million acres of prairies, forests and other
natural areas from cultivation over the past decade. These areas provide food and shelter for wildlife and
preserve biodiversity.

GM Food key to conservation of the environment


Paarlberg, 2000.
Professor of Political Science at Wellesley College and an associate at the
Weatherhead Center for International Affairs at Harvard UniversityForeign
Affairs. New York: May/Jun 2000. Vol. 79, Iss. 3; pg. 24,
Transgenic products not only reduce chemical sprays, they can also aid in land conservation and species
protection. For small farmers in the tropics, if GM crops or animal vaccines make farm and grazing lands
more productive, there will be less need to plow up or graze more fragile lands in the future. In sub-Saharan
Africa, roughly 5 million hectares of forest are lost every year, primarily to new clearance for low-yield
agriculture. The real threat to biodiversity in poor countries today comes from such cutting of natural
habitats. Thus the ultimate environmental payoff from transgenic crop technologies could include fewer
watersheds destroyed, fewer hillsides plowed, fewer trees cut, and more species saved.

25
ADI 08 Hingstman
GMOs Toolbox

GMO Good- Farmers


GMO Good- Key to resistance to climate and weather changes
Whitman, 2000
Deborah “Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?” April 2000)
# Cold tolerance Unexpected frost can destroy sensitive seedlings. An antifreeze gene from cold water fish
has been introduced into plants such as tobacco and potato. With this antifreeze gene, these plants are able
to tolerate cold temperatures that normally would kill unmodified seedlings10. (Note: I have not been able
to find any journal articles or patents that involve fish antifreeze proteins in strawberries, although I have
seen such reports in newspapers. I can only conclude that nothing on this application has yet been
published or patented.)

# Drought tolerance/salinity tolerance As the world population grows and more land is utilized for housing
instead of food production, farmers will need to grow crops in locations previously unsuited for plant
cultivation. Creating plants that can withstand long periods of drought or high salt content in soil and
groundwater will help people to grow crops in formerly inhospitable places11, 12.

GMO’s good- Key to farming industry


Monsanto, 2008. “Agricultural Biotechnology”
http://www.monsanto.com/biotech-
gmo/asp/globalOutlook.asp#gmCropsSafe.
Farmers growing biotech crops increased their income by US$34 billion. Farmers have increased
income through higher yields and lower production costs — including fewer pesticide applications and the
more efficient use of farm labor. Research indicates an increase in income is consistent worldwide with
significant economic benefits realized by small- and large-scale farmers alike. o Farmers are
marketing more than US$44 billion of GM crops to processors and consumers around the world each year.
Food, feed and fiber markets are open and available for biotech crops. o In 2004, farmers planting
biotech crops earned an additional US$4 billion due to increased crop yields and/or decreased production
costs. o Chinese farmers planting Bt cotton realized a three-year average yield increase of 24 percent
and net economic returns of US$332 per hectare (US$132 per acre) compared to conventional cotton
farmers. o Bt cotton farmers in South Africa consistently experienced higher yields and increased
revenues of US$86 to $93 per hectare (US$34 to $37 per acre) compared to conventional cotton. o
Hawaiian farmers planting ringspot-tolerant papaya increased their incomes by more than US$3,000 per
hectare (US$1,200 per acre) due to average yield increases of 44 percent over conventionally bred varieties,
and saved their industry.

26
ADI 08 Hingstman
GMOs Toolbox

GMO Good- Developing Countries

GMO Good- Solves malnutrition and medical problems worldwide


Whitman, 2000
Deborah “Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?” April 2000)
# Nutrition Malnutrition is common in third world countries where impoverished peoples rely on a single
crop such as rice for the main staple of their diet. However, rice does not contain adequate amounts of all
necessary nutrients to prevent malnutrition. If rice could be genetically engineered to contain additional
vitamins and minerals, nutrient deficiencies could be alleviated. For example, blindness due to vitamin A
deficiency is a common problem in third world countries. Researchers at the Swiss Federal Institute of
Technology Institute for Plant Sciences have created a strain of "golden" rice containing an unusually high
content of beta-carotene (vitamin A)13. Since this rice was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation14, a non-
profit organization, the Institute hopes to offer the golden rice seed free to any third world country that
requests it. Plans were underway to develop a golden rice that also has increased iron content. However, the
grant that funded the creation of these two rice strains was not renewed, perhaps because of the vigorous
anti-GM food protesting in Europe, and so this nutritionally-enhanced rice may not come to market at
all15.
# Pharmaceuticals Medicines and vaccines often are costly to produce and sometimes require special
storage conditions not readily available in third world countries. Researchers are working to develop edible
vaccines in tomatoes and potatoes16, 17. These vaccines will be much easier to ship, store and administer
than traditional injectable vaccines.

GM Foods Key to solve poverty and starvation in developing


countries
Kaura, 2004. “GM Food Dangerous if Used as Main Meals” The East African
Standard Nairobi
http://allafrica.com/stories/200402020914.html 6feb04
But Kenya's own scientist and pioneer in the science of GM foods, Dr Florence Wambugu, argues that GM
foods are good for Africa because Africa's priority is food security and anything that will increase crop
yields should be greatly encouraged. Dr Wambugu pioneered the first genetically modified sweet potato in
Africa in the early 1990s.

Supporters of bio-engineered foods like Wambugu observe that in less developing countries struggling to
meet the food demands for their people, biotechnology has come in handy as a tool that can be used to raise
crop yields, create drought resistant crops and boost nutrition for millions of half starving people.

The scientist cites, for example, the experiment of farmers growing tissue-cultured bananas in East Africa
that has been able to triple their incomes and double the yields.

27
ADI 08 Hingstman
GMOs Toolbox

GMO Good- General


Monsanto, 2008. “Agricultural Biotechnology”
http://www.monsanto.com/biotech-
gmo/asp/globalOutlook.asp#gmCropsSafe.
After a 12 years of use on more than 1.7 billion acres (690.9 million hectares) worldwide, plant
biotechnology delivers proven economic and environmental benefits, a solid record of safe use and
promising products for our future. Following are key global facts about the advantages of genetically
modified foods and crops: * 12 million farmers — 90 percent of who farm in developing countries –
choose to plant biotech crops. Farmers in 23 countries on six continents are using plant biotechnology to
solve difficult crop production challenges and conserve the environment. Over the past decade, they’ve
increased area planted in genetically modified (GM) crops by more than 10 percent each year, increased
their farm income by more than US$34 billion, and achieved economic, environmental and social benefits
in crops such as soybeans, canola, corn and cotton. To date, total acres of biotech crops harvested exceed
more than 1.7 billion with a proven 12-year history of safe use. Over the next decade, expanded adoption
combined with current research on 57 crops in 63 countries will broaden the advantages of genentically
modified foods for growers, consumers and the environment.

GM Food good- key to nutrition


Paarlberg, 2000.
Professor of Political Science at Wellesley College and an associate at the
Weatherhead Center for International Affairs at Harvard UniversityForeign
Affairs. New York: May/Jun 2000. Vol. 79, Iss. 3; pg. 24,

Genetic technology could also improve nutrition. If the 250 million malnourished Asians who currently
subsist on rice were able to grow and consume rice genetically modified to contain Vitamin A and iron,
cases of Vitamin A deficiency (which currently kills 2 million a year and blinds hundreds of thousands of
children) would fall, as would the incidence of anemia (one of the main killers of women of childbearing
age).

The U.N.'s Food and Agriculture Organization has recently estimated that one out of every five citizens of
the developing world-- 828 million people in all-still suffers from chronic undernourishment. One reason
for this is lagging agricultural production in some poor regions despite the earlier innovations of the so-
called green revolution. The disadvantaged (and mostly female) farmers of Africa were bypassed by the
dramatic gains brought on by the conventional (non-GM) plant-breeding breakthroughs of the 1960s and
1970s. Between 1970 and 1983, new high-yielding rice varieties spread to about 50 percent of Asia's vast
rice lands but to only about 15 percent in sub-Saharan Africa. Similarly, improved wheat varieties spread to
more than 90 percent of Asia and Latin America but to only 59 percent of subSaharan Africa. This helps
explain why agricultural production has increased ahead of population growth in both East and South Asia
while falling behind population growth in sub-Saharan Africa-- leaving an estimated 39 percent of Africans
undernourished.

28
ADI 08 Hingstman
GMOs Toolbox

A2 GM Foods are Unsafe


GM Foods are proven safe through decades of research
Monsanto, 2008. “Agricultural Biotechnology”
http://www.monsanto.com/biotech-
gmo/asp/globalOutlook.asp#gmCropsSafe.

* International regulatory standards for GM crops are affirmed by a decade of safe use. Biotech crops
are among the most studied and reviewed foods in the world. Using well-established, internationally
accepted standards of risk assessment, regulatory authorities worldwide have reviewed all biotech crops
now on the market and determined that they pose no more risk than crops produced through traditional
breeding methods. A proven 12-year history of safe use supports the conclusion that the regulatory process
has been successful. Experts estimate more than 1 trillion meals containing ingredients from biotech crops
have been consumed with no reliable documentation of any food safety issues for people or animals.
Twenty-five Nobel Prize winners and 3,400 prominent scientists have expressed their support for the
advantages and safety of genetically modified foods and crops as a “powerful and safe” way to improve
agriculture and the environment. Numerous international organizations also have endorsed the health and
environmental safety of biotech crops, including the Royal Society (UK), National Academy of Sciences
(USA), the World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the
European Commission, the French Academy of Medicine, and the American Medical Association.
* 63 countries are conducting plant biotech research across 57 different crops.

29
ADI 08 Hingstman
GMOs Toolbox

Rejection of GMO-> Starvation

Countries that refuse to accept GMO’s harm their poorest citizins


Bates, Roger. 2004 Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute “Political Food
Folly” August 6 2004.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/bate200408060856.asp
But not all food subsidies are so obviously odious. Many subsidies funded by the world's taxpayers are
designed to increase access of the poorest of the poor to basic nutrition. For example recent food aid and
funding from the rich world's aid agencies to southern Africa has saved millions from malnourishment.
However, some countries, such as Zambia, are still being picky about the food aid they accept and are
actively harming their citizens.

In 2002 Andersen was concerned that the Zambian president decided not to allow genetically modified food
aid. At the time, agriculture minister Mundia Sikatana said, "In view of the current scientific uncertainty
surrounding the issue...[the] government has decided to base its decision not to accept GM foods in Zambia
on the precautionary principle." Andersen said that the Zambian government was being "unreasonable"
since the government has been using the food to feed Angolan refugees in the country. Today he still
believes this to be the case.

Refusal to accept GM foods leds thousands to starve


Bates, Roger. 2004 Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute “Political Food
Folly” August 6 2004.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/bate200408060856.asp
The refusal sparked a fierce debate in the capital, Lusaka, with opposition politicians coming out against
the decision. Thousands of tons of American food aid were removed from the country — aid workers were
taking food away from the mouths of starving children. This was just one more example of the folly of the
"precautionary principle," and how it is killing poor people in Africa.
So the Zambian government demanded corn when there were alternatives, later decided not to accept it, so
harming hundreds of thousands of severely malnourished people. Back then I said that "President Levy
Mwanawasa does not yet have the dastardly track record of his southern neighbor, Zimbabwean president
Robert Mugabe, but many more policy decision like this and he will deserve the same international
opprobrium." Today he does deserve the disdain of international media and especially his own people, since
perhaps as many as 20,000 Zambians died as a result of his policies.

Subsidies, and especially food aid, have their place, but they are often captured by vested interests, or
emasculated by crazy policy decisions. In the past ten years over 14 billion GM meals have been eaten by
Americans with no ill effect. But in the perverse world of public policy that hasn't mattered a great deal.
The forces of stupidity and malign political self-interest continue to hold sway in many parts of Africa,
undermining the good work their politicians are doing to reduce Western agricultural subsidies.

30
ADI 08 Hingstman
GMOs Toolbox

GMO Bad- Health


GM Corn destroys sub-Saharan food supply
Kaura, 2004. “GM Food Dangerous if Used as Main Meals” The East African
Standard Nairobi
http://allafrica.com/stories/200402020914.html 6feb04
Other countries like Malawi and Zimbabwe said they had accepted that there could be risks to agriculture
but not to human health. The two countries thus insisted that GM maize be imported only as flour.
Recently, a study to estimate the risks to human health by genetically engineered maize was conducted in
the US and Sweden.
The study showed that the prevalence of unexplained alimentary canal complications in the US where GM
foods are allowed was higher than in Sweden where GM foods are not allowed. Yet in the US, GM maize
constitutes only a small percentage of the diet. Thus, food experts are arguing that if GM maize were to be
given to people as the main diet, it would be more devastating.

Experts have also warned that when GM maize is eaten in large quantities, it is possible that human
reproduction will be reduced, as has been the case among pigs. Maize is the most important food crop in
most of the sub-Saharan Africa and such a contamination would be a major disaster. Other experts have
argued that contrary to popular belief, the introduction of GM maize will not increase yields.

They say that various studies have shown that GM crops usually yield lower than their respective non-GM
equivalents. In Africa, South Africa is by far the most advanced in the use of genetically modified
organisms. But the anti-GM groups in South Africa want the government to hold off all GM food imports
and exports as well as their cultivation until there has been sufficient public debate.

GMO Bad- creates mutant weeds and rampant allergies


Whitman, 2000
Deborah “Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?” April 2000)

# Reduced effectiveness of pesticides Just as some populations of mosquitoes developed resistance to the
now-banned pesticide DDT, many people are concerned that insects will become resistant to B.t. or other
crops that have been genetically-modified to produce their own pesticides.

# Gene transfer to non-target species Another concern is that crop plants engineered for herbicide tolerance
and weeds will cross-breed, resulting in the transfer of the herbicide resistance genes from the crops into
the weeds. These "superweeds" would then be herbicide tolerant as well. Other introduced genes may cross
over into non-modified crops planted next to GM crops. The possibility of interbreeding is shown by the
defense of farmers against lawsuits filed by Monsanto. The company has filed patent infringement lawsuits
against farmers who may have harvested GM crops. Monsanto claims that the farmers obtained Monsanto-
licensed GM seeds from an unknown source and did not pay royalties to Monsanto. The farmers claim that
their unmodified crops were cross-pollinated from someone else's GM crops planted a field or two away.
More investigation is needed to resolve this issue.
Human health risks
# Allergenicity Many children in the US and Europe have developed life-threatening allergies to peanuts
and other foods. There is a possibility that introducing a gene into a plant may create a new allergen or
cause an allergic reaction in susceptible individuals. A proposal to incorporate a gene from Brazil nuts into
soybeans was abandoned because of the fear of causing unexpected allergic reactions31. Extensive testing
of GM foods may be required to avoid the possibility of harm to consumers with food allergies. Labeling of
GM foods and food products will acquire new importance, which I shall discuss later.

31
ADI 08 Hingstman
GMOs Toolbox

GMO Bad- Butterflies

GMO Bad Leads to the extinction of Monarch butterflies


Whitman, 2000
Deborah “Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?” April 2000)
Genetically-modified foods (GM foods) have made a big splash in the news lately. European environmental
organizations and public interest groups have been actively protesting against GM foods for months, and
recent controversial studies about the effects of genetically-modified corn pollen on monarch butterfly
caterpillars1, 2 have brought the issue of genetic engineering to the forefront of the public consciousness in
the U.S. In response to the upswelling of public concern, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
held three open meetings in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and Oakland, California to solicit public opinions
and begin the process of establishing a new regulatory procedure for government approval of GM foods3. I
attended the FDA meeting held in November 1999 in Washington, D.C., and here I will attempt to
summarize the issues involved and explain the U.S. government's present role in regulating GM food.

GMO Bad – Kill Monarch butterflies


Whitman, 2000
Deborah “Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?” April 2000)
# Unintended harm to other organisms Last year a laboratory study was published in Nature21 showing that
pollen from B.t. corn caused high mortality rates in monarch butterfly caterpillars. Monarch caterpillars
consume milkweed plants, not corn, but the fear is that if pollen from B.t. corn is blown by the wind onto
milkweed plants in neighboring fields, the caterpillars could eat the pollen and perish. Although the Nature
study was not conducted under natural field conditions, the results seemed to support this viewpoint.
Unfortunately, B.t. toxins kill many species of insect larvae indiscriminately; it is not possible to design a
B.t. toxin that would only kill crop-damaging pests and remain harmless to all other insects. This study is
being reexamined by the USDA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other non-
government research groups, and preliminary data from new studies suggests that the original study may
have been flawed22, 23. This topic is the subject of acrimonious debate, and both sides of the argument are
defending their data vigorously. Currently, there is no agreement about the results of these studies, and the
potential risk of harm to non-target organisms will need to be evaluated further.

Loss of Biodiversity overwhelm ecosystem resiliency leads to


extinction
Santos, Professor of Ecology & Environmental Science at Baruch College,
1999 (Miguel, The Environmental Crisis, p. 35 – 36)
In view of their ecologic role in ecosystems, the impact of species extinction may be devastating. The rich
diversity of species and the ecosystems that support them are intimately connected to the long-term survival
of humankind. As the historic conservationist Aldo Leopold stated in 1949, The outstanding scientific
discovery of the twentieth century is not television or radio but the complexity of the land organisms.... To
keep every cog and wheel is the first precaution of intelligent tinkering. An endangered species may have a
significant role in its community. Such an organism may control the structure and functioning of the
community through its activities. The sea otter, for example, in relation to its size, is perhaps the most
voracious of all marine mammals. The otter feeds on sea mollusks, sea urchins, crabs, and fish. It needs to
eat more than 20 percent of its weight every day to provide the necessary energy to maintain its body
temperature in a cold marine habitat. The extinction of such keystone or controller species from the
ecosystem would cause great damage. Its extinction could have cascading effects on many species, even
causing secondary extinction. Traditionally, species have always evolved along with their changing
environment. As disease organisms evolve, other organisms may evolve chemical defense mechanisms that
confer disease resistance. As the weather becomes drier, for example, plants may develop smaller, thicker
leaves, which lose water slowly. The environment, however, is now developing and changing rapidly, but
evolution is slow, requiring hundreds of thousands of years. If species are allowed to become extinct, the

32
ADI 08 Hingstman
GMOs Toolbox

total biological diversity on Earth will be greatly reduced; therefore, the potential for natural adaptation and
change also will be reduced, thus endangering the diversity of future human life-support systems.

GMOs Bad- Destroys Growth


Pushes for GM foods are motivated by US desires to secure a market
for US products and destroy developing countries local industries
Sharma, 2003
Devinder, agricultural scientist, Agriculture Editor of the Indian Express,
Chairs of the New Delhi-based Forum for Biotechnology & Food Security “Gm
Foods: Towards An Apocalypse” July 19, 2003 ZSpace

Trade and financial manipulations alone are not enough. Already with the mainline science -- and this
includes almost the entire agricultural science research infrastructure in North America -- under the captive
control of the corporate world, the industry is now getting restless at the way the developing country
governments are throwing in impediments in the fast-track destruction of food self-sufficiency. After all, as
long as developing countries remain self-sufficient, GM crops will not have an opening. The focus
therefore is not on how to strengthen the food self-sufficiency movement in the developing world but on
how to make these countries dependent on the GM food produced in the technology-rich countries.

Subsidies allow the United States to dump unwanted GM foods on


Developing countries leading to poverty, and exacerbating the food
crises
Sharma, 2003
Devinder, agricultural scientist, Agriculture Editor of the Indian Express,
Chairs of the New Delhi-based Forum for Biotechnology & Food Security “Gm
Foods: Towards An Apocalypse” July 19, 2003 ZSpace

Mounting food subsidy and the resulting dumping of grains has already forced millions of small and
marginal farmers in the developing world to be driven out of agriculture to move to the urban slums in
search of menial living. Highly subsidised agriculture in America and for that matter in the OECD is the
root cause for growing hunger, destitution and poverty in the majority world. GM foods, produced by the
biotechnology corporations, will further exacerbate the food crisis -- eliminate in the process not hunger but
the hungry.

33
ADI 08 Hingstman
GMOs Toolbox

GMOs Bad- A2 Key to solve famine


Claims that GM foods are key to solve for famine mask the US
Agenda to destroy developing countries
Sharma, 2003
Devinder, agricultural scientist, Agriculture Editor of the Indian Express,
Chairs of the New Delhi-based Forum for Biotechnology & Food Security “Gm
Foods: Towards An Apocalypse” July 19, 2003 ZSpace

Ironically, it is famine, hunger and accompanying lies that has become the normal campaign route to push
unwanted and highly risky genetically altered crops and foods. In India where hunger co-exists with over-
flowing food stocks, the entire scientific community (and the industry) is busy diverting the national
attention from the more pressing problems of food insecurity to promoting biotechnology. unwanted crops
-- like Bt cotton and GM Mustard -- are therefore being promoted by hoodwinking the gullible farmers with
lies and damn lies. The secretary of the Department of Biotechnology has gone on record saying that Bt
cotton increases the yield by as much as 80 per cent. She has even said that GM potato (which is still under
trials) will contain 40 per cent protein.

Claims that GM foods offer a solution to hunger are untrue and are
tactics to coerce unwilling developing countries to serve the United
States
Sharma, 2003
Devinder, agricultural scientist, Agriculture Editor of the Indian Express,
Chairs of the New Delhi-based Forum for Biotechnology & Food Security “Gm
Foods: Towards An Apocalypse” July 19, 2003 ZSpace

In reality, Bt cotton does not increase crop yield (not even in China which has a huge area under genetically
modified crops and where the negative impacts have begun to show) and GM potato contains only about
2.5 per cent proteins.

At the international level, the global offensive is being built around coercion. Therefore, three ministers
from each of the 180 invited countries - and holding the portfolios of Trade, Agriculture and Health - will
assemble at downtown Sacramento in California from June 23-25. The invitation, which comes from the
US Agriculture Secretary, Ms Ann Veneman, is essentially for educating (in reality, intimidating) these
democratically elected representatives on the virtues of GM foods, and why they must back the US
multinational corporations fight against global hunger. If not, then why must they remain quiet. Ann
Veneman will explain the consequences -- both economic and political -- of not accepting the fruits of
cuting-edge technology, as genetic engineering is fondly called.

34
ADI 08 Hingstman
GMOs Toolbox

GMOs Bad- Kills R & D


Promotion of GM foods destroys developing countries agricultural
research and development
Devinder, agricultural scientist, Agriculture Editor of the Indian Express,
Chairs of the New Delhi-based Forum for Biotechnology & Food Security “Gm
Foods: Towards An Apocalypse” July 19, 2003 ZSpace

At the same time agricultural research, which has been instrumental in ushering in food self-sufficiency in
many of the developing countries in the post-green revolution era is being gradually dismantled. The
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) itself is under tremendous pressure
from the agri-business corporations, which sees it as the main obstacle in the process of control and
manipulation. With research priorities shifting from national requirements to servicing the biotechnology
industry, like in India, it will be a matter of time before developing countries begin to return to the
frightening days of 'ship-to-mouth' existence.

35
ADI 08 Hingstman
GMOs Toolbox

GMOs Bad- US EVIL


Food Aid is not humanitarian, but just an opportunity to push the US
Corporate Agenda
Devinder, agricultural scientist, Agriculture Editor of the Indian Express,
Chairs of the New Delhi-based Forum for Biotechnology & Food Security “Gm
Foods: Towards An Apocalypse” July 19, 2003 ZSpace

Even food aid is being used to push GM foods. It is no longer about humanitarian needs of starving
populations but about the commercial interests of the international corporations. First finding an outlet for
its mounting food surplus through the mid-day meal scheme for African children (force fed through the
World Food Programme), the US then literally arm-twisted four African countries to accept GM food at the
height of the food scarcity that prevailed in central and southern Africa in 2002. It even tried forcing the
International Red Cross Federation to lift the unwanted GM food as part of an international emergency so
as to feed the hungry.

It did not however work. Zambia and Zimbabwe led the resistance against GM foods, saying that it would
prefer its poor to die than to feed them with unhealthy food. Meanwhile, Sudan too has decided not to
accept GM food aid.

US GMOs force developing countries to abandon the growth of their


own domestic industries ensuring they are dependent on the US
Devinder, agricultural scientist, Agriculture Editor of the Indian Express,
Chairs of the New Delhi-based Forum for Biotechnology & Food Security “Gm
Foods: Towards An Apocalypse” July 19, 2003 ZSpace

This is not an isolated effort. Way back, in 1986, the US had enacted a legislation, called Bumper's
Amendment, that prohibited "agricultural development activities, consultation, publication, conference, or
training in connection with the growth and production in a foreign country of an agricultural commodity for
export which would compete with a similar commodity grown or produced in the United States". As a
result, the American support for research and development for crops, which competed with those grown in
the US were stopped. With national research programmes closing down for paucity of funds, the field is
now open for biotech industry to take over.
Never in the past history has any government stepped in to force the world and that too literally down the
throat into accepting what it produces. Never before has the world been forced to accept technologies
(howsoever risky these might be) and that includes nuclear power, in the name of poor, hungry and
sustainable development. Never before has any country tried to force feed a hungry Continent by creating a
false scenario of an impending famine, which never happened. Never before has science and technology
been
sacrificed in such a shameful manner at the altar of commercial growth and profits.

The world has been made to forget the age-old Chinese adage, "if you want to feed a man for a day give
him fish. But if you want to feed him for life teach how to catch fish." The ability to catch fish or in other
words to produce food locally has been gradually destroyed. The hungry are now expected to buy food
produced by biotech companies. And therein lies a grave danger.

(Devinder Sharma is an Indian writer, author, commentator and thinker. An agricultural scientist by
training, he has been the Agriculture Editor of the Indian Express, before quitting active journalism to
research on policy issues concerning trade, genetic engineering and food security. He also chairs the New
Delhi-based Forum for Biotechnology & Food Security

36
ADI 08 Hingstman
GMOs Toolbox

MISC
Without Strong government agricultural support- GMO foods aren’t
approved.
Paarlberg, 2000.
Professor of Political Science at Wellesley College and an associate at the
Weatherhead Center for International Affairs at Harvard UniversityForeign
Affairs. New York: May/Jun 2000. Vol. 79, Iss. 3; pg. 24,
Tragically, the leading players in this global GM food fight-- U. S.-based industry advocates on the one
hand and European consumers and environmentalists on the other-simply do not reliably represent the
interests of farmers or consumers in poor countries. With government leadership and investment missing,
the public interest has been poorly served. When national governments, foreign donors, and international
institutions pull back from making investments of their own in shaping a potentially valuable new
technology, the subsequent public debate naturally deteriorates into a grudge match between aggressive
corporations and their most confrontational NGO adversaries. This confrontation then frightens the public
sector, deepening the paralysis.

Breaking that paralysis will require courageous leadership, especially from policymakers in developing
countries. These leaders need to carve out a greater measure of independence from the GM food debate in
Europe and the United States. Much larger public-sector investments of their own in basic and applied
agricultural research will be necessary to achieve this autonomy. New investments in locally generated
technology represent not just a path to sustainable food security for the rural poor in these countries; in
today's knowledge-driven world, such investments are increasingly the key to independence itself.

37