GMOs Toolbox (ADI)

8/14/2019 GMOs Toolbox (ADI)

1/37

ADI 08 HingstmanGMOs Toolbox p. 1 of 37

Genetically Modified Food Tool BoxGenetically Modified Food Tool Box.............................................................................................................................1Agricultural Trade Liberalization Promotes GMOs........................................................................................................2WTO promotes GMOs....................................................................................................................................................3WTO Promotes GMOS...................................................................................................................................................4Cartagena Protocol Does Not Stop the WTO from Promoting GMOs...........................................................................5Free Trade Agreements promote GMOs.........................................................................................................................6Trade Liberalization Leads to GMOs..............................................................................................................................7Bilateral Trade Agreements promote GMOs..................................................................................................................8Biofuel Crop Free Trade Promotes GMOs.....................................................................................................................9Link Turn: Plan Hurts GMOs -- Domestic Subsidies Pay for GMO Farming.................... .............. .............. .......... ...10GMO Good- Europe and Mexico..................................................................................................................................11US Subsidies=> GM food in Brazil..............................................................................................................................12EU Links.......................................................................................................................................................................13EU Links ......................................................................................................................................................................14A2 EU Links.................................................................................................................................................................15Japan./ South Korea Links............................................................................................................................................17Consumer Backlash I/l..................................................................................................................................................18GMO Good Fuel/Food..................................................................................................................................................19

GMO Good- Fuel/Food.................................................................................................................................................20GMO Good- Productivity.............................................................................................................................................21GMO Good- Increased Yield........................................................................................................................................22GMO Good- Environment............................................................................................................................................24GMO Food- Environment.............................................................................................................................................25GMO Good- Farmers....................................................................................................................................................26GMO Good- Developing Countries..............................................................................................................................27GMO Good- General....................................................................................................................................................28A2 GM Foods are Unsafe.............................................................................................................................................29Rejection of GMO-> Starvation....................................................................................................................................30GMO Bad- Health.........................................................................................................................................................31GMO Bad- Butterflies...................................................................................................................................................32GMOs Bad- Destroys Growth.......................................................................................................................................33

GMOs Bad- A2 Key to solve famine............................................................................................................................34GMOs Bad- Kills R & D...............................................................................................................................................35GMOs Bad- US EVIL...................................................................................................................................................36MISC.............................................................................................................................................................................37

Hingstman 16


2/37

ADI 08 HingstmanGMOs Toolbox p. 2 of 37

Agricultural Trade Liberalization PromotesGMOs

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

Shiva in 2006Dr. Vandana, Director of The Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Natural Resource Policy, How TenYears 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 thatwas 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 ruleover 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 inagriculture but global corporations like Cargill. These firms gain from every rule that marginalizes farmers byremoving support from agriculture. They gain from every rule that deregulates international trade, liberalisesexports and imports, and make restrictions of exports and imports illegal. Market openings through the AOAare therefore market opening for the Cargills and Monsantos.

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

______Transnational companies want agricultural trade liberalizationto double GMO penetration in an open world market

Bov in 2005Jos, leader and founder of the Peasants Confederation in France (La Confederation Paysanne), which then enlargeditself 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 corporationswant it now to be 20 or 30 percent , but of course, farmers all over the world are resisting this because it makes nosense for their own population. Over 90 percent of food is produced where people live. So we don't understand andnobody can explain to us why we need to have free trade for food; that is going exactly in the wrong direction. Sothis is roughly our principle fight.

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

We also talk about the problems of seeds the possibility for farmers to use their own seeds and also the WTOrules on patents. We are fighting also to have seeds free of patents; that's why we are fighting specially againstGMOs. Even if GMO had no ecological problems or health problems, we would also be against GMOs on thisspecific issue: the fact that farmers can't use their own seeds . So these are some of the examples of the troublesof Via Campesina. This is getting bigger and bigger.


3/37

ADI 08 HingstmanGMOs Toolbox Trade Links to GMOs

WTO promotes GMOs____ WTO created to help spread GMOs

Drew in 2006Pamela, 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 iseffectively a marketing organization for Monsanto, et al , created in 1994 along with biotech policy . USAIDworks with policy to give food to countries rather then help create food security through agricultural developmentand fair trade. It's a system of colonial rule that has expanded, disguised as policy in the National interest butserves multinational corporate interests.

_____ WTO dispute resolution allows GMOs to spread

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

Due to so-called free trade agreements established by the World Trade Organisation, it may become illegal forindividual countries to maintain higher organic standards than the U.S. So what happens in the U.S. has adirect knock-on effect on Europe.


4/37


WTO Promotes GMOSWTO facilitates GMOS world wideFinancial Times in 2006Edward 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 Europesfailure 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 newcrops against widespread consumer resistance in Europe.

It was immediately welcomed by US farmers and the biotechnology industry , but castigated by environmentaland consumer groups who charged the ruling was a blatant example of international trade rules running roughshodover 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 thedispute late yesterday, said: Were please with the outcome. Were not at the end of the road, but its a significantmilestone.

WTO bad- leads to the dumping of GM foods on developing countriesSharma, 2003Devinder, agricultural scientist, Agriculture Editor of the Indian Express,Chairs of the New Delhi-based Forum for Biotechnology & Food Security GmFoods: Towards An Apocalypse July 19, 2003 ZSpace

Coinciding with the frontal attack through the dispute panel, is a seemingly harmless exercise to close ranksaround flawed economic policies. Senior officials of the WTO-IMF-World Bank met at Geneva in May todeliberate on how to bring greater `coherence' in their policies through ``liberalisation of trade and financialflows, deregulation, privatisation and budget austerity''. As if loan conditions of the IMF/World Bank thathave 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 foodexporting countries - to dump unwanted genetically altered foods, thereby destroying food self-sufficiencyin developing countries and expanding markets for the large grain exporting companies.


5/37


Cartagena Protocol Does Not Stop the WTOfrom Promoting GMOs

WTO takes sides with the US on GMOs against the ProtocolCarlarne 2007Cinnamon, Harold Wood Junior Research Fellow in Environmental Law,Wadham College; Research Fellow, Centre for Socio-Legal Studies, Universityof Oxford, Environmental Law, Spring, L/N

The Cartagena Protocol (41) creates a multilateral regime governing the transnational movement of GMOs. (42) Theobjective 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 livingmodified organisms resulting from modern biotechnology that may have adverse effects on the conservation andsustainable use of biological diversity, taking also into account risks to human health, and specifically focusing ontransboundary 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 freetrade. (44) As demonstrated by the hormones disputes, the WTO discourages the use of any regulations thatlimit trade in new products absent clear evidence that the regulations comport with international standardsor are based on sound science and risk assessments.

The aims and objectives of the Cartagena Protocol and the WTO establish potentially conflicting regimes thatthe United States and the EU can refer to in support of their disparate GMO policies. Consequently, it is notsurprising 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 conflictingregulatory regimes concerning the testing, use, labeling, identification, and approval procedures required to allowGMOs and GMO products to reach domestic markets. During the early days of the emerging GMO debate, the EUenacted a de facto ban on the import and sale of all GMOs. The United States, on the other hand, placed relativelyfew 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 itsregulations on the basis of precautionary concerns, the United States insists that bans, strict regulations, and labelingrequirements 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 Thisdecision is too new to have elicited a comprehensive response. However, it stands to reshape and prolong thecurrent United States-EU GMO dispute . Within the WTO, GMOs are viewed as the "next battlefield" n48 and thelong-anticipated dispute is quickly taking concrete form.

The WTO supports GM food despite safety protocolsSharma, 2003

Devinder, agricultural scientist, Agriculture Editor of the Indian Express,Chairs of the New Delhi-based Forum for Biotechnology & Food Security GmFoods: 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 UShas so far opposed the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, which has been signed by over 100 countries and wasintended to ensure through agreed international rules and regulations that countries have the necessary informationto make informed choices about GM foods and crops. With the WTO appearing on the scene, the Cartagena Protocolhas become meaningless. Since the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) has not been ratified by the US, it isnot under any obligation to follow

the Biosafety Protocol.


6/37


Free Trade Agreements promote GMOs_____ FTAA (Free Trade Area of the Americas) will spread GMO use

Global Exchange in 2007membership-based international human rights organization dedicated to promoting social, economic andenvironmental 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 geneticallymodified organisms (GMOs). But environmental groups warn that these technologies haven't been adequatelytested, and food security experts say GMOs could increase hunger in poor nations. Farmers have traditionally savedtheir seeds from year to year, but as multinational corporations patent GM seeds these farmers will be forced to payfor seeds, pushing them further into dependency.


7/37


8/37


Bilateral Trade Agreements promote GMOs____ US/India trade initiatives spread GMOs

Shiva in 2006Dr. 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 showinginflexibility in offering to reduce distorting farm subsidies in exchange for increased market access is notbecause 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 non-agreements

like the U.S.India Knowledge Initiative in Agriculture, which is promoting GMOs, agricultural

imports and the entry of U.S. grant Wal-mart in Indian retail. Monsanto, Wal-mart 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 GMOSTikait, et al., in 2008Mahender Singh Tikait, President, Bhartiya Kissan Union, India; Ajmer Singh Lakhowal, State President, BKUPunjab; 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 governmentalso permitted large-scale field trials of Bt Brinjal, the first GM food crop in India, while several otherGM crops are on the verge of being released for commercial cultivation. In order to protect our biologicaldiversity, we demand a complete ban on commercial release as well as imports of all GM crops, foodsand seeds in the country. Instead of promoting GMOs, the government must support ecologicalagriculture and provide incentives for growing toxic free foods through organic farming.


9/37


Biofuel Crop Free Trade Promotes GMOs____ Transnationals want to use biofuels to spread GMOs inagriculture

Ho in 2007

Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, director, Institute of Science in Society, London, http://www.i-sis.org.uk/NoToGMOs.phpBriefing 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 competedirectly 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 tothe ground, replaced by plantations, and in the process, sending extra tonnes of carbon dioxide into theatmosphere, 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-BerkeleyEnergy 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 witha variety of transgenes, as GM trees have been widely proposed for plantations on the mistaken assumptionthat they can offset carbon emissions, and more so, qualify for subsidies under the Kyoto Protocols CleanDevelopment 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 toovercome the stiff public resistance to GM crops by giving GM crops a green wash. It also hopes tosidestep the regulatory hurdle on grounds that safety does not matter because GM bioenergy crops arenot used as food. But GM plantations and biofuel crops will exacerbate existing problems with GMcrops and make GM contamination much more likely.


10/37

ADI 08 HingstmanGMOs Toolbox

Link Turn: Plan Hurts GMOs -- DomesticSubsidies Pay for GMO Farming

_____ Corn subsidies save BT Corn farmers from bankruptcy

World Wildlife Fund Switzerland in 2005GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS (GMOs): A DANGER TO SUSTAINABLEAGRICULTUREMay,http://assets.panda.org/downloads/gmosadangertosustainableagriculture.pdf

Introduced in 1996, Bt corn now accounts for more than 20% of the corn area. Growers have spentabout 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 understandwhether farmers have succeeded in compensating the 35% jump in their seed expendituresprovoked by the introduction of the new Bt variety . Simultaneously, Bt corn market price has fallendrastically 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 since1999) 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


11/37


GMO Good- Europe and Mexico

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

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

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

11


12/37


US Subsidies=> GM food in Brazil

Brazilian Farmers forced to use GM produce to compete with heavilysubsidized US crops, even though they are considered illegal

Whitman, 2000Deborah 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 bemandatory as of April 200136, 37. Currently, testing of GM foods is voluntary. Japanese supermarkets areoffering both GM foods and unmodified foods, and customers are beginning to show a strong preferencefor 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 theyfear economic harm if they are unable to compete in the global marketplace with other grain-exportingcountries.

GM Foods Illegal in BrazilPaarlberg, 2000.Professor of Political Science at Wellesley College and an associate at theWeatherhead Center for International Affairs at Harvard University ForeignAffairs . 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 lastmoment when a federal judge granted an injunction filed by Greenpeace and a Brazilian consumer instituteon 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 infrom 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 farmersfound to be growing GM soybeans. Greenpeace has thrown its weight behind efforts to keep Rio Grande doSul a "GM-free zone."

12
http://proquest.umi.com.libproxy.usc.edu/pqdweb?RQT=318&pmid=6&TS=1217626497&clientId=5239&VInst=PROD&VName=PQD&VType=PQDhttp://proquest.umi.com.libproxy.usc.edu/pqdweb?RQT=318&pmid=6&TS=1217626497&clientId=5239&VInst=PROD&VName=PQD&VType=PQDhttp://proquest.umi.com.libproxy.usc.edu/pqdweb?RQT=572&VType=PQD&VName=PQD&VInst=PROD&pmid=6&pcid=1151547&SrchMode=3http://proquest.umi.com.libproxy.usc.edu/pqdweb?RQT=318&pmid=6&TS=1217626497&clientId=5239&VInst=PROD&VName=PQD&VType=PQDhttp://proquest.umi.com.libproxy.usc.edu/pqdweb?RQT=318&pmid=6&TS=1217626497&clientId=5239&VInst=PROD&VName=PQD&VType=PQDhttp://proquest.umi.com.libproxy.usc.edu/pqdweb?RQT=572&VType=PQD&VName=PQD&VInst=PROD&pmid=6&pcid=1151547&SrchMode=3


13/37


EU LinksThe EU refuses to embrace GM foodsWhitman, 2000Deborah Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful? April 2000)

In Europe, anti-GM food protestors have been especially active. In the last few years Europe hasexperienced two major foods scares: bovine spongiform encephalopathy (mad cow disease ) in Great Britainand 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 informationabout GM foods. In response to the public outcry, Europe now requires mandatory food labeling of GMfoods 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 andpoverty and stunt worldwide growthSharma, 2003Devinder, agricultural scientist, Agriculture Editor of the Indian Express,

Chairs of the New Delhi-based Forum for Biotechnology & Food Security GmFoods: Towards An Apocalypse July 19, 2003 ZSpace

Accusing Europe of undercutting efforts to feed starving Africans by blocking the use of geneticallymodified crops which could 'dramatically' boost productivity, the American administration fired the firstmissile by formally announcing to launch a complaint with the WTO against the European Union for itsfive-year ban on approving new biotech crops. This has set the stage for an international showdown over anincreasingly 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 governmentsshould 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 USeconomy, stunting the growth of the biotech industry and contributing to increased starvation in thedeveloping world.

13


14/37


EU Links

Reassurances and studies that show GM foods are safe have noimpact on European Consumers, they will never accept GM foods.Paarlberg, 2000.Professor of Political Science at Wellesley College and an associate at theWeatherhead Center for International Affairs at Harvard University ForeignAffairs . 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 themarket have been rigorously screened by the regulatory authorities, that they continue to be monitored, andthat no evidence of harm has been detected. We have concluded that all the GM food so far on the marketin this country is safe for consumption.

Yet such expert reassurances are discounted by European consumers, distrustful since the 1996 "mad cowdisease" scare. That crisis undermined consumer trust in expert opinion after U.K. public health officialsgave 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 generatednew consumer anxieties about food safety at precisely the moment in 1996 when U.S.-grown GM soybeanswere 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 struggledagainst nuclear power and the use of various man-made chemicals (especially chlorine, which Greenpeacehad tried to label "the Devil's chemical") inflamed consumer phobias Of GM foods. In Britain, PrinceCharles (a self-described organic farmer) and Paul McCartney joined the chorus. In France-where food isnever just food-a broad coalition of farmers, labor unions, environmentalists, and communists launchedattacks 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, GMopponents drew dark parallels between the genetic manipulation of food and their country's earlier lapseinto human eugenics.

14


15/37


A2 EU Links

EU supports GM foods, despite concerns and public outcryPANUPS 2007. Pesticide Action Network Updates Service Weekly Updatehttp://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 Friendsof the Earth (FoE) and GE Freeze have unearthed secret emails showing otherwise. The Independentreports that these "startling internal documents" reveal that agricultural biotech companies receivedsubsidies 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 itsnon-existence benefits." The Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) called itssupport a response to "consumer demand" (despite government surveys that found 86 percent of the publicreject 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 "isworkable for you" and redrafted rulings "in response to your concerns." Other documents revealed agovernment promise to continue funding research on GE crops even in the case of "a Europe-wide ban.

15
http://www.panna.org/resources/panupshttp://www.panna.org/resources/panups


16/37


EU LinksPublic opinion dictates Government Action on GM foods in EUPaarlberg, 2000.Professor of Political Science at Wellesley College and an associate at theWeatherhead Center for International Affairs at Harvard University Foreign

Affairs . New York: May/Jun 2000 . Vol. 79 , Iss. 3 ; pg. 24,These well-publicized campaigns forced significant corporate and government concessions in Europe. InApril 1998, without scientific evidence of any harm from GM foods, Brussels stopped approving new GMcrops for use in or import into the Eu. This has meant a de facto ban on all corn imports from the UnitedStates (worth roughly $200 million annually), since bulk shipments might contain some GM varieties notyet 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 1999not to use GM ingredients-at least where it could be avoided.

16


17/37


Japan./ South Korea LinksConsumer backlash to GM foods in Japan, South Korea and AustraliaPaarlberg, 2000.Professor of Political Science at Wellesley College and an associate at theWeatherhead Center for International Affairs at Harvard University ForeignAffairs . 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, includingheavily imported products such as GM soybeans and GM corn if intended for human consumption (asopposed 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'sKirin 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 opposedthe 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, announcedin 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-GMingredients-not because of any new evidence that transgenic ingredients were unsafe, but out of fear of aGreenpeace-led boycott. Frito-Lay, the nation's major snack-food provider, followed suit, announcing that itwould no longer use GM corn. In November 1999 several members of Congress introduced a "GeneticallyEngineered Food Right to Know" bill that would require labels on any food containing at least 0.10 percentGM 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


18/37


Consumer Backlash I/lConsumer Backlash to GM foods dooms international cooperation,US insistence on GM food weakens them internationallyPaarlberg, 2000.Professor of Political Science at Wellesley College and an associate at theWeatherhead Center for International Affairs at Harvard University ForeignAffairs . 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 sharpconflicts in several international settings, including the World Trade Organization (WTO) and theConvention 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 anunresolved 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 whilegovernments 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 togovern 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 preventstates from taking precautionary import actions. The protocol then goes on to oblige exporters of livingmodified organisms meant for environmental release (such as plants or seeds) to provide prior notificationof 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 Departmentofficials reluctantly accepted the final terms of the protocol, partly with the hope that it might calmconsumer and importer fears if the United States and the Eu were seen to agree on the issue. By acceptingthe protocol, the United States also avoided further isolation within the CBD (to which Washington is notyet a formal party, since the Senate has failed to ratify it). But this acquiescence may have weakenedAmerica's hand on future GM trade issues within the WTO.

18


19/37


GMO Good Fuel/Food

Prevents Fuel for food trade off Cameron, Doug. 2008Doug, Agribuisness Group Forms to Protect Ethanol Subsidies. Wall Street

Journal July 25 th 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 intofood supplies if new technologies, such as genetically modified crops, are used to their fullest. The group isalso working hard to protect government subsidies for ethanol production.

GM agriculture is key to eliminate food/fuel debate and meetdemand for bothAlliance for Abundant Food and Enery. Alliance for Abundant Food and

Energy to highlight promise of Agriculture to sustain ably meet food andenergy needs foodandenergy.org July 24th 2008

Washington, D.C., July 24, 2008 Today, leaders from across the agriculture value chain joined together toform the Alliance for Abundant Food and Energy, an alliance designed to promote their understanding thatthrough innovation, agriculture can sustainably meet the growing global demand for food and renewableforms 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 insupporting our food and energy needs, said Mark Kornblau, executive director, Alliance for AbundantFood and Energy. With growing global demand for grain, its critically important that policy leaders startthinking 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 andenergy needs worldwide.

19


20/37


GMO Good- Fuel/Food

Food/Fuel debates distort the connected nature of production andignores agriculture based solutions.Alliance for Abundant Food and Enery. Alliance for Abundant Food andEnergy to highlight promise of Agriculture to sustain ably meet food andenergy needs foodandenergy.org July 24th 2008

Recently, critics have tried to frame the debate as an either/or decision, making people feel they mustchoose between food and energy security. The Alliance believes this is a false choice that ignores both thecapabilities of agriculture and our nations history of using innovation to solve our problems. The Alliancerealizes both are possible and can be accomplished using less land and fewer resources than generallyunderstood.

The companies forming the Alliance are experts in agriculture, from planted seed to market sale, puttingthem 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 worlds

population grew 13 percent, while farmers were able to meet increased needs using only six percent moreland.

GM Foods promise to benefit the developing countires- and even theplaying fieldPaarlberg, 2000.Professor of Political Science at Wellesley College and an associate at theWeatherhead Center for International Affairs at Harvard University ForeignAffairs . 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 tropicsdue 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 than30 percent) to insects and plant disease.

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

poor.

20


21/37


GMO Good- Productivity

GM Foods key to innovation, productivity, and quality in food andenergy, to meet growing world need

Alliance for Abundant Food and Enery. Alliance for Abundant Food andEnergy to highlight promise of Agriculture to sustain ably meet food andenergy needs foodandenergy.org July 24th 2008

The history of agriculture demonstrates constant innovation to meet the worlds 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. Increasedfarm productivity, combined with novel and improved processing technologies, will allow agriculture tomeet 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 andfueling the world, the technology designed into machinery, coupled with the ingenuity of the world'sfarmers, will have just as significant an impact.

Agriculture must be higher on our agenda in a world of increasing food and energy demands and limitedresources, 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 andnutritional quality, while limiting the amount of new land required for cultivation. And were 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 faceon the planet including both our food and energy needs, said Robert T. Fraley, Ph.D., chief technologyofficer of Monsanto. With the worlds population expected to reach nine billion people by 2050, theagriculture industry must act together to meet the needs for increased food, fiber and energy and while

preserving our environments resources such as water.

GM Foods worth 210 billion in income gains worldwideMonsanto, 2008. Agricultural Biotechnologyhttp://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 cropsoccurring in developing countries at a rate of 2.1 percent gross national product per year.

21


22/37


GMO Good- Increased YieldRound up allows for increased yieldsPR Newswire, 2008Monsanto Announces Key Regulatory Approvals for Roundup Ready 2 Yield Soybeans;Product Remains on Track for 2009 Launch, July 24 th 2008.

In four years of testing, Roundup Ready 2 Yield soybeans have demonstrated a consistent yield advantageof 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 the2009 season as part of a controlled commercial release, followed by a large-scale product launch of 5million to 6 million acres scheduled for 2010.

GMOs solve food shortagesWhitman, 2000Deborah 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. Ensuringan 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 pesticidesannually. Consumers do not wish to eat food that has been treated with pesticides because of potentialhealth hazards, and run-off of agricultural wastes from excessive use of pesticides and fertilizers can poisonthe water supply and cause harm to the environment. Growing GM foods such as B.t. corn can helpeliminate the application of chemical pesticides and reduce the cost of bringing a crop to market4, 5.

GM Food Good- Key to conservation and healthMonsanto, 2008. Agricultural Biotechnologyhttp://www.monsanto.com/biotech-gmo/asp/globalOutlook.asp#gmCropsSafe.

Each year, global population grows by more than 70 million, and agriculture is required to producemore food with limited land and water resources. Scientists believe biotechnology holds great potential tohelp 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 improveddrought tolerance, saline tolerance and increased yields. The research also will deliver products with directconsumer benefits such as enhanced nutrition, convenience and taste. For example: o Foodingredients 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 500,000children and up to 2 million deaths annually. o Plants that can tolerate stress from harsh environments

22


23/37


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

23


24/37


GMO Good- Environment

GMO good- they prevent the excessive use of pesticides thatdestroy the environmentWhitman, 2000Deborah 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 astilling, so farmers will often spray large quantities of different herbicides (weed-killer) to destroy weeds, atime-consuming and expensive process, that requires care so that the herbicide doesn't harm the crop plantor the environment. Crop plants genetically-engineered to be resistant to one very powerful herbicide couldhelp prevent environmental damage by reducing the amount of herbicides needed. For example, Monsantohas created a strain of soybeans genetically modified to be not affected by their herbicide product Roundup6. 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 biologistsare working to create plants with genetically-engineered resistance to these diseases8, 9.

GMOs good Reduce Pesticides and environmental destructionMonsanto, 2008. Agricultural Biotechnologyhttp://www.monsanto.com/biotech-gmo/asp/globalOutlook.asp#gmCropsSafe.

* Farmers have decreased pesticide applications by 289,000 metric tons. Consumers consistently rank areduction in pesticide applications as the most valuable benefit of plant biotechnology which isimportant since farmers have significantly reduced pesticide sprayings, while conserving the water and fuelotherwise depleted with tillage or plowing. The planting of biotech crops has reduced the "environmentalfootprint" of cotton, corn, soy and canola by 15.5 percent, as calculated using an established environmentalindex 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 largestcontributors 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 insecticideactive ingredient, and 5 million gallons of diesel fuel per year. o Chinese farmers decreased pesticideapplications 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 applicationsin Bt cotton. o Annual reductions of 46 million pounds of pesticide have been recorded in the UnitedStates on four primary crops. o Australian farmers used 50 percent fewer pesticide applications on Btcotton. *

24


25/37


GMO Food- Environment

GMOs Good- Sustainable Faming key to avoid tilling, soil erosionand other destructive farming processes and protect bio-diversity.

Monsanto, 2008. Agricultural Biotechnologyhttp://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 adoptconservation or no-till practices. In the United States alone, these practices and other conservationmeasures are reducing soil erosion by 1 billion tons and saving consumers $3.5 billion in water treatmentcosts annually. Biotech crops also have played an important role in boosting the productivity of existingfarmland 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 environmentPaarlberg, 2000.Professor of Political Science at Wellesley College and an associate at theWeatherhead Center for International Affairs at Harvard University ForeignAffairs . 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 landsmore productive, there will be less need to plow up or graze more fragile lands in the future. In sub-SaharanAfrica, roughly 5 million hectares of forest are lost every year, primarily to new clearance for low-yieldagriculture. The real threat to biodiversity in poor countries today comes from such cutting of naturalhabitats. 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


26/37


GMO Good- FarmersGMO Good- Key to resistance to climate and weather changesWhitman, 2000Deborah Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful? April 2000)

# Cold tolerance Unexpected frost can destroy sensitive seedlings. An antifreeze gene from cold water fishhas been introduced into plants such as tobacco and potato. With this antifreeze gene, these plants are ableto tolerate cold temperatures that normally would kill unmodified seedlings10. (Note: I have not been ableto find any journal articles or patents that involve fish antifreeze proteins in strawberries, although I haveseen 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 housinginstead of food production, farmers will need to grow crops in locations previously unsuited for plantcultivation. Creating plants that can withstand long periods of drought or high salt content in soil andgroundwater will help people to grow crops in formerly inhospitable places11, 12.

GMOs good- Key to farming industryMonsanto, 2008. Agricultural Biotechnologyhttp://www.monsanto.com/biotech-gmo/asp/globalOutlook.asp#gmCropsSafe.

Farmers growing biotech crops increased their income by US$34 billion. Farmers have increasedincome through higher yields and lower production costs including fewer pesticide applications and themore efficient use of farm labor. Research indicates an increase in income is consistent worldwide withsignificant economic benefits realized by small- and large-scale farmers alike. o Farmers aremarketing 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 productioncosts. 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 cottonfarmers. o Bt cotton farmers in South Africa consistently experienced higher yields and increasedrevenues of US$86 to $93 per hectare (US$34 to $37 per acre) compared to conventional cotton. oHawaiian 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


27/37


GMO Good- Developing Countries

GMO Good- Solves malnutrition and medical problems worldwide

Whitman, 2000Deborah Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful? April 2000)# Nutrition Malnutrition is common in third world countries where impoverished peoples rely on a singlecrop such as rice for the main staple of their diet. However, rice does not contain adequate amounts of allnecessary nutrients to prevent malnutrition. If rice could be genetically engineered to contain additionalvitamins and minerals, nutrient deficiencies could be alleviated. For example, blindness due to vitamin Adeficiency 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 highcontent 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 thatrequests it. Plans were underway to develop a golden rice that also has increased iron content. However, thegrant that funded the creation of these two rice strains was not renewed, perhaps because of the vigorousanti-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 specialstorage conditions not readily available in third world countries. Researchers are working to develop ediblevaccines 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 developingcountriesKaura, 2004. GM Food Dangerous if Used as Main Meals The East AfricanStandard Nairobihttp://allafrica.com/stories/200402020914.html 6feb04

But Kenya's own scientist and pioneer in the science of GM foods, Dr Florence Wambugu, argues that GMfoods are good for Africa because Africa's priority is food security and anything that will increase cropyields should be greatly encouraged. Dr Wambugu pioneered the first genetically modified sweet potato inAfrica in the early 1990s.

Supporters of bio-engineered foods like Wambugu observe that in less developing countries struggling tomeet the food demands for their people, biotechnology has come in handy as a tool that can be used to raisecrop 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 Africathat has been able to triple their incomes and double the yields.

27


28/37


GMO Good- GeneralMonsanto, 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 geneticallymodified 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 tosolve difficult crop production challenges and conserve the environment. Over the past decade, theyveincreased area planted in genetically modified (GM) crops by more than 10 percent each year, increasedtheir farm income by more than US$34 billion, and achieved economic, environmental and social benefitsin crops such as soybeans, canola, corn and cotton. To date, total acres of biotech crops harvested exceedmore 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 genenticallymodified foods for growers, consumers and the environment.

GM Food good- key to nutritionPaarlberg, 2000.Professor of Political Science at Wellesley College and an associate at theWeatherhead Center for International Affairs at Harvard University ForeignAffairs . New York: May/Jun 2000 . Vol. 79 , Iss. 3 ; pg. 24,

Genetic technology could also improve nutrition. If the 250 million malnourished Asians who currentlysubsist 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 childbearingage).

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 reasonfor 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 thedramatic gains brought on by the conventional (non-GM) plant-breeding breakthroughs of the 1960s and1970s. Between 1970 and 1983, new high-yielding rice varieties spread to about 50 percent of Asia's vastrice lands but to only about 15 percent in sub-Saharan Africa. Similarly, improved wheat varieties spread tomore than 90 percent of Asia and Latin America but to only 59 percent of subSaharan Africa. This helpsexplain why agricultural production has increased ahead of population growth in both East and South Asiawhile falling behind population growth in sub-Saharan Africa-- leaving an estimated 39 percent of Africans

undernourished.

28


29/37


A2 GM Foods are Unsafe

GM Foods are proven safe through decades of researchMonsanto, 2008. Agricultural Biotechnologyhttp://www.monsanto.com/biotech-gmo/asp/globalOutlook.asp#gmCropsSafe.

* International regulatory standards for GM crops are affirmed by a decade of safe use. Biotech cropsare among the most studied and reviewed foods in the world. Using well-established, internationallyaccepted standards of risk assessment, regulatory authorities worldwide have reviewed all biotech cropsnow 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 processhas been successful. Experts estimate more than 1 trillion meals containing ingredients from biotech cropshave 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 theadvantages 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 andenvironmental 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, theEuropean Commission, the French Academy of Medicine, and the American Medical Association.

* 63 countries are conducting plant biotech research across 57 different crops.

29


30/37


Rejection of GMO-> Starvation

Countries that refuse to accept GMOs harm their poorest citizinsBates, Roger. 2004 Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute Political Food

Folly August 6 2004.http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/bate200408060856.aspBut not all food subsidies are so obviously odious. Many subsidies funded by the world's taxpayers aredesigned to increase access of the poorest of the poor to basic nutrition. For example recent food aid andfunding 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 areactively harming their citizens.

In 2002 Andersen was concerned that the Zambian president decided not to allow genetically modified foodaid. At the time, agriculture minister Mundia Sikatana said, "In view of the current scientific uncertaintysurrounding the issue...[the] government has decided to base its decision not to accept GM foods in Zambiaon 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 starveBates, Roger. 2004 Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute Political FoodFolly 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 againstthe decision. Thousands of tons of American food aid were removed from the country aid workers weretaking 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, soharming hundreds of thousands of severely malnourished people. Back then I said that "President LevyMwanawasa does not yet have the dastardly track record of his southern neighbor, Zimbabwean presidentRobert Mugabe, but many more policy decision like this and he will deserve the same internationalopprobrium." 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 byAmericans 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


31/37


GMO Bad- Health

GM Corn destroys sub-Saharan food supplyKaura, 2004. GM Food Dangerous if Used as Main Meals The East AfricanStandard Nairobihttp://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 inthe US and Sweden.The study showed that the prevalence of unexplained alimentary canal complications in the US where GMfoods are allowed was higher than in Sweden where GM foods are not allowed. Yet in the US, GM maizeconstitutes only a small percentage of the diet. Thus, food experts are arguing that if GM maize were to begiven 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 humanreproduction will be reduced, as has been the case among pigs. Maize is the most important food crop inmost of the sub-Saharan Africa and such a contamination would be a major disaster. Other experts haveargued 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-GMequivalents. In Africa, South Africa is by far the most advanced in the use of genetically modifiedorganisms. But the anti-GM groups in South Africa want the government to hold off all GM food importsand exports as well as their cultivation until there has been sufficient public debate.

GMO Bad- creates mutant weeds and rampant allergiesWhitman, 2000Deborah Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful? April 2000)

# Reduced effectiveness of pesticides Just as some populations of mosquitoes developed resistance to thenow-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 toleranceand weeds will cross-breed, resulting in the transfer of the herbicide resistance genes from the crops intothe weeds. These "superweeds" would then be herbicide tolerant as well. Other introduced genes may crossover into non-modified crops planted next to GM crops. The possibility of interbreeding is shown by thedefense of farmers against lawsuits filed by Monsanto. The company has filed patent infringement lawsuitsagainst 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 thattheir 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 peanutsand 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 intosoybeans was abandoned because of the fear of causing unexpected allergic reactions31. Extensive testingof 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


32/37


GMO Bad- Butterflies

GMO Bad Leads to the extinction of Monarch butterfliesWhitman, 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 environmentalorganizations and public interest groups have been actively protesting against GM foods for months, andrecent controversial studies about the effects of genetically-modified corn pollen on monarch butterflycaterpillars1, 2 have brought the issue of genetic engineering to the forefront of the public consciousness inthe 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 opinionsand begin the process of establishing a new regulatory procedure for government approval of GM foods3. Iattended the FDA meeting held in November 1999 in Washington, D.C., and here I will attempt tosummarize the issues involved and explain the U.S. government's present role in regulating GM food.

GMO Bad Kill Monarch butterfliesWhitman, 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 caterpillarsconsume milkweed plants, not corn, but the fear is that if pollen from B.t. corn is blown by the wind ontomilkweed plants in neighboring fields, the caterpillars could eat the pollen and perish. Although the Naturestudy 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 aB.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 mayhave been flawed22, 23. This topic is the subject of acrimonious debate, and both sides of the argument aredefending 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 toextinctionSantos, 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 richdiversity of species and the ecosystems that support them are intimately connected to the long-term survivalof humankind. As the historic conservationist Aldo Leopold stated in 1949, The outstanding scientificdiscovery of the twentieth century is not television or radio but the complexity of the land organisms.... Tokeep every cog and wheel is the first precaution of intelligent tinkering. An endangered species may have asignificant 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 mostvoracious of all marine mammals. The otter feeds on sea mollusks, sea urchins, crabs, and fish. It needs toeat more than 20 percent of its weight every day to provide the necessary energy to maintain its bodytemperature in a cold marine habitat. The extinction of such keystone or controller species from theecosystem would cause great damage. Its extinction could have cascading effects on many species, evencausing secondary extinction. Traditionally, species have always evolved along with their changingenvironment. As disease organisms evolve, other organisms may evolve chemical defense mechanisms thatconfer 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, butevolution is slow, requiring hundreds of thousands of years. If species are allowed to become extinct, the

32


33/37


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

GMOs Bad- Destroys GrowthPushes for GM foods are motivated by US desires to secure a marketfor US products and destroy developing countries local industriesSharma, 2003Devinder, agricultural scientist, Agriculture Editor of the Indian Express,Chairs of the New Delhi-based Forum for Biotechnology & Food Security GmFoods: Towards An Apocalypse July 19, 2003 ZSpace

Trade and financial manipulations alone are not enough. Already with the mainline science -- and thisincludes almost the entire agricultural science research infrastructure in North America -- under the captivecontrol of the corporate world, the industry is now getting restless at the way the developing countrygovernments 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 focustherefore is not on how to strengthen the food self-sufficiency movement in the developing world but onhow 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 onDeveloping countries leading to poverty, and exacerbating the foodcrisesSharma, 2003Devinder, agricultural scientist, Agriculture Editor of the Indian Express,Chairs of the New Delhi-based Forum for Biotechnology & Food Security GmFoods: Towards An Apocalypse July 19, 2003 ZSpace

Mounting food subsidy and the resulting dumping of grains has already forced millions of small andmarginal farmers in the developing world to be driven out of agriculture to move to the urban slums insearch of menial living. Highly subsidised agriculture in America and for that matter in the OECD is theroot 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 butthe hungry.

33


34/37


GMOs Bad- A2 Key to solve famine

Claims that GM foods are key to solve for famine mask the USAgenda to destroy developing countriesSharma, 2003Devinder, agricultural scientist, Agriculture Editor of the Indian Express,Chairs of the New Delhi-based Forum for Biotechnology & Food Security GmFoods: Towards An Apocalypse July 19, 2003 ZSpace

Ironically, it is famine, hunger and accompanying lies that has become the normal campaign route to pushunwanted 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 nationalattention 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 withlies and damn lies. The secretary of the Department of Biotechnology has gone on record saying that Btcotton 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 so

Documents

GMOs Toolbox (ADI)