The Lynas School of Pseudo-Scientific Environmentalism

Posted on Jan 8 2013 - 12:45pm by Sustainable Pulse

Twenty-two pieces of junk science from the Lynas Manifesto: By Dr Brian John Past Lecturer in Geography, University of Durham 6th January 2013

Mark Lynas

In a high-profile lecture to the recent Oxford Farming Conference, self-proclaimed neo-scientist Mark Lynas launched a vicious polemic, aimed at the organic farming movement and at those who oppose GM crops and foods and the activities of the GM multinationals. The speech was linked in to a highly orchestrated pro-GM publicity campaign. The press loved it — and Lynas was pretty pleased with it himself, pushing the text of his speech out in all directions and twittering happily about its impact on the global stage…… which included 30,000 hits on his web site. The theme which the press picked up on was of course that of the ex-GM crop trasher who has now put emotion and prejudice to one side and who has become instead a science junkie.

Others might see the conversion of a naive individual from one religion to another………

Within a day of the lecture, somebody (Mark Lynas?) had placed this on the Lynas Wikipedia page:
“In a January 2013 lecture to the Oxford Farming Conference, Lynas detailed his conversion from an organizer of the the anti-GMO food movement in Europe to becoming a supporter of the technology. He admitted “… in 2008 I was still penning screeds in the Guardian attacking the science of GM – even though I had done no academic research on the topic, and had a pretty limited personal understanding. I don’t think I’d ever read a peer-reviewed paper on biotechnology or plant science…” He apologized for engaging in vandalism of field trials of genetically engineered crops and rationalized his conversion stating, “anti-science environmentalism became increasingly inconsistent with my pro-science environmentalism with regard to climate change.” Lynas criticized organizations with which he was previously associated including Greenpeace and organic trade groups like the U.K. Soil Association for ignoring scientific facts about genetically modified crop safety and benefits because it conflicted with their ideologies and stated he “was completely wrong to oppose GMOs.”

Unfortunately, there was no space on the Wikipedia page for any information on the “scientific facts” supposedly ignored by Greenpeace and the Soil Association. Let that pass for now. So — we have a retired environmental activist who now believes in “pro-science environmentalism”. Oh yes? When we read his speech, what we find is something which is so far away from scientific reliability that it is actually quite cringe-making. By turns, the speech is disingenuous, contrived, manipulative and factually inaccurate. Lynas is not a scientist, and it shows. He simply regurgitates the “convenient fictions” of the pro-GM lobby — often without bothering to check his facts. It is a disgraceful exhibition of hubris underpinned by pseudo-science, from top to bottom.

1. Lynas says that the early anti-GM campaign (which he claims that he helped to start) was “explicitly an anti-science movement”. Nonsense. HIS personal campaign might have been anti-science, but mine wasn’t, and neither was the movement I became familiar with. From the beginning, we used scientific evidence to flag up the potential dangers of GMOs and the environmental damage associated with them. We even used evidence from the the Government’s own (very inadequate) Farm-scale Trials of GM crops to show that GMOs harm the environment, and we placed great reliance on publicly-funded and peer-reviewed research which demonstrated cell damage in mammals which had consumed GM food.

2. Lynas waxes eloquent about the value of peer-reviewed science, and implies that this is what underpins biotechnology. Nonsense. The case for GM crops, such as it is, is based almost entirely on industry-funded research. This research is never peer-reviewed before it is seen by regulators who determine the safety of a GM crop for release or consumption, and who never evaluate whether a crop achieves its stated benefits. Even well after a crop is released, only a tiny fraction of these dossier studies are ever published — and they cannot be replicated by independent scientists because only those with a special relationship to the developing company have access to research raw materials. There are virtually no proper toxicology or safety studies, and studies that are flagged up as safety studies are often nothing more than short-term studies designed to show nutritional equivalence. Because these studies cannot be repeated or verified, they should be rejected out of hand by the scientific community. Instead, they are accepted as valid.

3. Lynas says that pest-tolerant cotton and maize (by which he means BT varieties) need less insecticide than normal varieties, and implies that GM crops use less chemicals than conventionally-bred varieties. Nonsense. BT varieties have inbuilt toxins, and they significantly add to the environmental load of these toxins. Initially, less spraying of chemical insecticides is required, but those in-built toxins have considerable effects on non-target species and on the environment, as demonstrated in many peer-reviewed papers. As for overall chemical use (including herbicides and insecticides), the evidence is overwhelming that chemical use in GM agriculture is already far in excess of that in conventional farming, and that it is rising inexorably as weeds and insect pests develop resistance to Roundup, Liberty and other chemicals that are essential parts of the “GM farming package.”

4. Lynas says that farmers are reaping “billions of dollars of benefits” accruing from the use of GM crops. Nonsense. Farmers in those areas which concentrate on GM soy and maize monocultures (for example) do indeed initially enjoy reduced management costs, but those costs then rise when they are caught in the “corporate feudalism” trap; and many health and other costs associated with agrichemical spraying and environmental and health damage are externalised, and have to be carried by society at large. It is disingenuous in the extreme to pretend that these costs do not exist. In the largest study to date on one of the oldest GM crops, cotton in Georgia, the authors concluded that there was no net financial benefit to GM farmers. The cost of GM seeds has risen faster, in some cases twice as fast, as all other inputs in the US. Neither is there a benefit to farmers in developing countries, as shown in the literature.

5. Throughout his article, Lynas conflates opposition to GM with opposition to biotechnology, assuming that “environmentalists” are fundamentally opposed to scientific progress. This is nonsense. After more than a decade of close contact with groups involved in the anti-GM movement, I can say with certainty that most of them are supportive of the use of science in the development of new crop varieties and of scientific methods which can enhance productivity. There is no “anti-science agenda.” What groups like Greenpeace and the Soil Association want is good science, conducted for the benefit of the global community and with due regard for the principles of scientific ethics. That means science which is open, transparent and replicable, and where due respect is awarded to scientists whose experimental results may not accord with your own. Sadly, what these groups see when they look at GM science is an enterprise which is powerfully driven (even within the public sector) by the commercial imperative, where experiments cannot be repeated or replicated, and where scientists who discover “inconvenient” things are routinely vilified. In parallel with that, I believe that many groups are angered by GM corporations like Monsanto, which have managed, through an unrelenting campaign of patent registration and protection, to prevent farmers from seed saving and to ensure that they have to buy new seed for planting every year, from catalogues that are now dominated by GM varieties. They are also trapped into buying the chemicals that go with the seeds. It’s called corporate feudalism, and it operates in a climate of fear and mistrust, in which farming communities collapse under the strain. Individual farmers like Percy Schmeiser who incur the displeasure of Monsanto are pursued ruthlessly through the courts. Once again, persecution and vilification have replaced respect and tolerance.

6. Lynas pretends that crops like BT cotton and RR soy were pirated into India and Brazil because “farmers were so eager to use them.” Nonsense. They were pirated into a number of countries because many poor and vulnerable farmers were caught up in a high-pressure and sophisticated marketing campaign orchestrated by the GM industry — and which they were powerless to resist. They were promised low prices, cheap herbicides and pesticides, and miracle yields. Over the last decade thousands of farmers have been caught up in a vicious spiral of debt, leading to farm suicides on an epidemic scale, crop failures, and vastly increased chemical use. The socio-economic effects have been dramatic, and tragic.

7. Lynas says that GM is “safer and more precise than conventional breeding” and that it involves the movement of just a couple of genes. That is all utter rubbish. If Lynas had done any reading at all on GM, he would know that the genetic modification of a plant is an extremely complex business, since it has to overcome the natural defensive systems of plants when confronted by alien materials inserted into their genomes. That is why so many attempts at genetic modification fail, and why scientists find it difficult to achieve stability and uniformity in new GM crops. The novel proteins or RNA in GM plants have all sorts of unpredictable knock-on effects, as any GM scientist will confirm. GM is a highly imprecise science. And GM plants containing novel proteins (and often herbicide and other residues as well) are certainly not safe, which is why they induce chronic toxic effects in the animals that are fed on them.

8. Lynas pretends that gene flow happens all the time between unrelated species, and that it is perfectly fine. Nonsense. Gene flow on the scale involved in genetic manipulation, and at the speed required of the GM plant developers, is unique, which is why many GM varieties fail completely, and why many others are highly stressed. Thousands of GM “lines” fail to make it out of the laboratory or the greenhouse. All of the regulatory bodies worldwide know this, and this is why GM varieties are considered in law to be uniquely different from other varieties — and why special steps need to be taken to prevent outcrossing and contamination of other farmed varieties and related wild species.

9. Lynas pretends that GM crops are going to solve the great problems of global hunger and population increase, and sides with Norman Borlaug in asserting that those who oppose biotechnology are somehow responsible for precipitating famines, killing innocent people and encouraging “the crisis of global biodiversity.” Nonsense. Without going into the side-effects of the “Green Revolution” it is widely accepted that the global food crisis is not a problem of under-production but a problem best solved through political, social and economic reform. It is a problem attributable to a lack of WILL, not a lack of technology or a lack of miracle crops. The IAASTD report of 2008 saw very little if any role for GM crops in a future world of increased food sovereignty, security, sustainability and environmental protection. If Lynas thinks that a world filled with GM crops is going to protect biodiversity, he has been seriously misinformed, since GM monocultures are not only associated with the systematic elimination of locally-adapted indigenous food crop varieties, but also — through spraying and management techniques — with substantial ecosystem damage.

10. Lynas pretends that the development of GM varieties has been made “prohibitively expensive” because of “anti-biotech campaigners” and the regulatory system which he lays at the door of “the twisted domestic politics of anti-biotech countries like France and Austria”. Nonsense. The development of GM varieties is prohibitively expensive because of the manner in which they are made and because of obsessive secrecy and patent protection. The breeding process is very complicated indeed, and because there is such a high rate of failures many lines are discarded before commercialisation. A significant cost is accrued by these companies in securing and then defending their intellectual property rights. Simply from a technical standpoint, conventional crop breeding requires a 7 – 8 year cycle, compared to 10 – 15 years from inception to development for genetically modified crops. That has nothing to do with nasty anti-GM campaigners or the regulatory system. In Europe, the regulatory system put in place by the EU was not instigated or influenced by France and Austria but by the community of nations, intent upon ensuring that GM crops, being unique and potentially dangerous, should not enter the food chain unless and until they had gone through a rigorous assessment process. If Lynas thinks that was irresponsible, then thank God he is not in charge of our food supplies.

11. Lynas pretends that GM crops increase yields and that they are better for a hungry world and for the environment than organic agriculture. Nonsense. For a start, GM crops do not increase yields. Initially, they might reduce crop losses due to weed and insect infestations, but where herbicide tolerance to Roundup or Liberty (for example) is built in to a GM variety both weeds and pests rapidly adapt and lead to an inexorable increase of the chemical load required to maintain yields over time. Stacked “events” are developed, and farming costs rise inexorably as yields fall. And if Lynas had bothered to do a little light reading on GM plant breeding, he would discover that most of the apparently high-yielding GM varieties are productive not because of the introduced traits but because the best and highest yielding varieties were chosen in the first place for the GM process. “Isoline” varieties are then taken off the seed catalogues, leaving the “wonder” GM varieties to compete with a few inferior conventional crops that remain. In other words, yield increases are down to conventional breeding techniques, and not to the introduction of GM traits.

12. Lynas attacks the organic movement as being a “rejectionist” one with an antipathy towards chemicals and even science. Nonsense. The Soil Association does reject certain chemicals and practices because science — and the practical experience of farmers worldwide — demonstrate associated harm. If a practice or a substance is harmful, it does not take a very sophisticated cost-benefit analysis to suggest that you should stop using it. The problem that Lynas appears to have is that he seems to think only in terms of productivity, as if it can be isolated from everything else in the real world. In reality, there is no great point in maximising farm productivity (through the use of GM crops, or in any other way) if long-term sustainability is compromised, or if you are suffering from a lack of food security, or if your food sovereignty is surrendered to some large corporation that happens to have its base in St Louis Missouri. This is precisely the point made over and again by IAASTD and other bodies examining global population increases and food supply.

13. Lynas suggests that global increases in agricultural production over the last 50 years — for example in China and South America — are all down to chemical use and biotechnology. Nonsense. These things are difficult to quantify, but globally there have been great strides in conventional plant breeding, farm management, mechanisation, crop protection, food harvesting and preservation, and even marketing and processing — all leading to increased productivity. Far greater progress has been down to the conventional breeding of locally adapted varieties — rather than to the development of GM varieties which are vulnerable in times of environmental stress and which are pushed — for commercial reasons — into areas for which they are ill adapted.

14. Lynas thinks that glyphosate is a “benign herbicide.” Nonsense. Glyphosate is a toxic chemical designed to kill things. It does its job, and kills both target and non-target species. The peer-reviewed literature is full of articles which show that the effects of exposure to glyphosate are damaging to cells, to reproductive capacity and to soil micro-organisms. More to the point, glyphosate is generally combined in proprietary substances (under brand names like Roundup) with surfactants and other chemicals designed to increase its effectiveness in killing things. Where it is used with RR food crops, residues remain in the plants and enter the food chain. It is becoming increasingly clear, through the studies by Prof Gilles-Eric Seralini and others (in the peer-reviewed literature) that there are chronic toxic effects in mammals — and that means that glyphosate and Roundup should NOT be tolerated at any level in the human food chain.

15. Lynas assumes that everyone should be able to use “improved crops which would benefit the environment” if they want to. Nonsense. GM crops may be sold to gullible people like Lynas as being environmentally beneficial, but some of us are rather more streetwise. GM crops are regulated — by mutual consent — because they are different from other crops, and because they have the potential for doing damage on an unprecedented scale and in ways that are unforseen. Communities of farmers can only coexist peacefully if no farmer feels that he is threatened by the activities of others — and if GM crops spread onto the land of farmers who do not want them, either because of pollen drift or poor farm management or because of the spillage of GM seed during transport, complex issues of containment, coexistence and even compensation arise. It is disingenuous in the extreme for Lynas to pretend that non-GM farmers are somehow being selfish if they insist on adequate protection — in a world where the GM corporations are set upon a process of GM contamination by stealth.

16. Lynas pretends that those who seek to destroy or stop GM crop trials in open fields are prejudiced, emotional and anti-science. Nonsense. True, there are strong feelings and zealous people out there, who feel some sort of mission — but Lynas would do well to recognize that such people exist within the pro-GM camp just as frequently as they do within the anti-GM camp. He is one of them, along with Rick Roush, Maurice Maloney, and George Freeman among many others. In fact the arguments against most of the GM trials which have attracted protests have been carefully nuanced, science based and quite respectful of the right of research scientists to conduct their research under carefully controlled conditions. Lynas does his own cause a grave disservice by seeking to portray the protestors as cranks and hysterical eco-freaks who know nothing of science. He also seems to think that because experiments are done (with some public funding) by Rothamsted in the UK or CSIRO in Australia, they should somehow be accepted and respected. Perhaps he needs to be reminded that their experiments in the GM field have more to do with politics, commerce and research lab self-preservation than they do with feeding the world.

17. Lynas sings the praises of the Golden Rice Project, and claims that Greenpeace and others who oppose it are “immoral and inhumane.” Nonsense, once again. He is seeking to defend a project which has been a PR disaster from the beginning. Everybody knows that Golden Rice is a GM variety which is being used by Syngenta and the GM industry as a Trojan Horse. They never refer to it as a GM crop — and the intention is to get it into the market place without any regulatory controls whatsoever. So it is sold to a gullible media as a “humanitarian crop” which will deal with Vitamin A deficiency among millions of poor people worldwide. Everybody knows that you can deal with that problem far more effectively — and at much lower cost — by introducing vegetables into the diets of those who use rice as their staple crops. Golden Rice is not a “public benefit” variety. Lynas should go off and talk to Syngenta, the corporation that owns certain Golden Rice patents and which will enforce them and make money from them just as soon as it sees fit. And then our brave scientist attacks Greenpeace for drawing attention to the Chinese researchers who fed Golden Rice to children without informing their parents that this was a GM product that had never been tested on animals, as it should have been for safety reasons. Again, if he had only bothered to do a bit of research, he would have discovered that Tufts University and the Golden Rice Project have been involved in highly secretive Golden Rice trials for some years now, in the face of mounting criticism about their cavalier attitude to scientific ethics.

18. Lynas crows over the petition circulated by John Pickett and his colleagues in support of the Rothamsted GM wheat trial in 2012. He says “they gained thousands of signatures” and implies that this demonstrates a sort of victory for common sense over prejudice. Nonsense. The petition — a joint enterprise between Rothamsted Research and the strange organization called Sense about Science — was a classic piece of unscientific garbage. At the time it was heavily criticised because it broke all the rules of public opinion polling — asking people to sign up for a generalist statement and then using it to support a very specific and controversial GM wheat trial. Where polls are conducted according to the rules, without steerage or bias, as in the 2012 BBC Countryfile Poll or in the recent poll in the Guardian newspaper, the percentage of UK respondents opposed to GM crops and foods is still consistently high — at over 70%.

19. Lynas claims that the positions taken by the Scottish and Welsh Governments on GMOs are based on “medieval superstition as a strategic imperative.” That claim is arrogant nonsense. The two administrations have taken a hard-nosed and scientific approach to GMOs, looking at the science in considerable depth over many years. They have come to the view that the science (either in the public domain or in “closed” assessment dossiers) does NOT support the view that GMOs are either harmless to health or safe for the environment — and they have enacted policies that reflect that situation and which are based upon the Precautionary Principle.

20. Lynas says: “Thus desperately-needed agricultural innovation is being strangled by a suffocating avalanche of regulations which are not based on any rational scientific assessment of risk.” Nonsense, yet again. The regulations for the control of GMOs in Europe and in many other countries are not perfect by any means, but they do attempt to incorporate scientific risk assessments. Maybe Lynas should go off and read the regulations instead of pontificating about their shortcomings. They are designed to protect the public — not to protect the commercial interests of the GM industry or to pander to the needs of the very small (and shrinking) GM research community.

21. Lynas thunders as follows: “The GM debate is over. It is finished. We no longer need to discuss whether or not it is safe – over a decade and a half with three trillion GM meals eaten there has never been a single substantiated case of harm.” Nonsense, as usual. He trots out the figure of “three trillion meals” fed to him by the GM industry with the utter conviction of somebody who cannot be bothered to think for himself. If he had paused for a moment, and done some research, he would have realized that there has not been a single piece of controlled epidemiological research into the effects on human beings of eating GM food. That is because the GM corporations are desperate to prevent such research. GM components have been leaked into the food supply, particularly in North America, to such a degree that it is now impossible to test a group of individuals consuming GM products against a GM-free control group. In any case, the effects of consuming GM food are likely to be chronic rather than acute — which means that they will not be manifested at an early stage. That does NOT mean that GM foods are harmless — and indeed the research on the toxicity of GM food and feed strongly suggests serious physiological damage.

22. Lynas says “yields per hectare are the most important environmental metric” and suggests that an acceptance of that principle should drive our attempts to feed the world. Nonsense. For somebody like Lynas, who seeks to portray himself as a man who respects science, it should take no more than a few seconds of thought to appreciate that high yields are completely meaningless in addressing global hunger concerns unless those yields are sustainable in the long term, unless they can be maintained without unacceptable social, health and environmental costs, and unless they can be maintained without spiralling cash and chemical inputs. Once again, Lynas shows himself to be completely ignorant about the realities of global development — just as he is completely ignorant on the matter of GM science.

Sorry Mr Lynas. You probably mean well, but your lecture to the Oxford Farming Conference was based on junk science, from beginning to end. Perhaps you are also easily led. If you were (as you claim) led astray in your early campaigning days, you have been even more seriously led by the nose by your more recent friends from Sense About Science and from the GM Industry.

The references below — many of them from peer-reviewed journals and government sources –are grouped in line with the numbering used in the text above.
1. The Farm Scale Evaluations in the UK Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), on Farm-Scale Evaluations.
2. Crop Scientists Say Biotechnology Seed Companies Are Thwarting Research By ANDREW POLLACK Published: February 19, 2009 The Genetic Engineering of Food and the Failure of Science – Part 2: Academic Capitalism and the Loss of Scientific Integrity by Don Lotter — Int. Jrnl. of Soc. of Agr. & Food, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 50–68 (Dec 2007) GM crops: Battlefield: by Emily Waltz Nature 461, 27-32 (2009) doi:10.1038/461027a, 2 September 2009 Editors. Do seed companies control GM crop research? Sci. Am.; 2009
3. Science News: ‘Superweeds’ Linked to Rising Herbicide Use in GM Crops, Study Finds Oct. 2, 2012 Pesticide Use Rises as Herbicide-resistant Weeds Undermine Performance of Major GE Crops, New WSU Study Shows Washington State University, 1 October 2012 Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the U.S. – the first sixteen years — by Charles M. Benbrook Environmental Sciences Europe, Vol. 24:24 doi:10.1186/2190-4715-24-24, 28 September 2012. Heinemann, J.A. Hope not Hype. The future of agriculture guided by the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development. Penang: Third World Network; 2009 Rosi-Marshall, E.J.; Tank, J.L.; Royer, T.V.; Whiles, M.R.; Evans-White, M.; Chambers, C., et al. Toxins in transgenic crop byproducts may affect headwater stream ecosystems. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 104:16204-16208; 2007
4. Scientists want inclusion of social economic considerations in risk assessment of GM crops Roy Mathew, The Hindu, September 30 2012 Jost, P.; Shurley, D.; Culpepper, S.; Roberts, P.; Nichols, R.; Reeves, J., et al. Economic comparison of transgenic and nontransgenic cotton production systems in Georgia. Agron J. 100:42–51; 2008 ‘The socio-economic effects of GMOs – Hidden costs for the food chain’ Delmer, D.P. Agriculture in the developing world: connecting innovations in plant research to downstream applications. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 102:15739-15746; 2005 Zilberman, D.; Sexton, S.E.; Marra, M.; Fernandez-Cornejo, J. The economic impact of genetically engineered crops. Choices. 25:(no page numbers); 2010
5. The GM lobby and its ‘Seven sins against science’ By Peter Melchett, Policy Director at the Soil Association The Ecologist magazine, 31 December 2012 Monsanto’s point of no return. By Joel Dyer Boulder Weekly, Thursday, August 30, 2012 GMOs: Seven Obvious Questions in Search of Straightforward Answers Colin Tudge Campaign for Real Farming, December 28 2012 Crucial GM research: “This is about large sums of money” Denise Battaglia Tages Woche (Switzerland), 2 Nov 2012 ENSSER calls for scientific debate of potential health risks of GM wheat instead of ad hominem attacks on researchers European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER) The covert war to discredit Seralini’s study Benjamin Sourice Rue 89, 12 November 2012
6. How Indian Farmers were lured into the GM technology trap: Cotton cultivators are on a seed and pesticide treadmill that is draining them of traditional skills by Latha Jishnu Issue: Dec 15, 2011 Maharashtra State Revokes Monsanto’s Cotton Seed License. 9 Aug 2012 Bt Cotton, a bitter harvest for farmers: Suicide and Despair in India, by Kavitha Kuruganti. Climate Connections,
7. Why genetically engineered food is dangerous: New report by genetic engineers Earth Open Source press release 17 June 2012 Genetic engineering is Not Precise or Predictable
8. Zeller, S. L., O. Kalinina, et al. (2010). “Transgene x environment interactions in genetically modified wheat.” PLoS ONE 5(7): e11405. Genetically Modified Foods: Breeding Uncertainty Charles W. Schmidt A typology of the effects of (trans)gene flow on the conservation and sustainable use of genetic resources, by Prof Jack A. Heinemann, FAO Background Study Paper, June 2007.
9. IAASTD, 2008, ‘Towards Multifunctional agriculture for Social, Environmental and Economic Sustainability’ Biotechnology and Sustainable Development Findings from the UN-led International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development Options for Action Hoffman, U. Assuring food security in developing countries under the challenges of climate change: key trade and development issues of a fundamental transformation of agriculture: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development;; 2011 Kiers, E.T.; Leakey, R.R.B.; Izac, A.-M.; Heinemann, J.A.; Rosenthal, E.; Nathan, D., et al. Agriculture at a crossroads. Science. 320:320-321; 2008 IAASTD. Agriculture at a Crossroads: The Synthesis Report of the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development. In: McIntyre BD, Herren HR, Wakhungu J, Watson RT, eds. International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development. Washington, D.C.: Island Press; 2009a IAASTD ed. International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development. Washington, D.C.: Island Press; 2009b
10. Questions and Answers on the Regulation of GMOs in the European Union GM biotech players outline their science roadmaps The European Regulatory System
Heinemann, J.A. Hope not Hype. The future of agriculture guided by the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development. Penang: Third World Network; 2009
11. Deconstructing Dinner nvb=20090804112650&nva=20090805113650&t=0b33d69055f708e1f28ff ISIS Report 11/04/08 Let the World Learn from North American Farmers’ Experience with GMOs Prof. E. Ann Clark Failure to Yield: Evaluating the Performance of Genetically Engineered Crops Doug Gurian-Sherman
Service, R.F. A growing threat down on the farm. Science. 316:1114-1117; 2007
12. Soil Association; GM crops – the health effects, 2008 [PDF, 169 KB] GMO and pesticide use research – Soil Association comment 03 October 2012
13. Economic and Social Development Department World Agriculture: Towards 2015/2030. Summary Report. Climate-smart Agriculture IAASTD, 2008, ‘Towards Multifunctional agriculture for Social, Environmental and Economic Sustainability’ Olivier De Schutter: United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food Agroecology and the Right to Food, Report presented at the 16th Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council [A/HRC/16/49], 8 March 2011
14. Antoniou M, Habib MEM, Howard CV, Jennings RC, Leifert C, Nodari RO, Robinson CJ, Fagan J (2012) Teratogenic Effects of Glyphosate-Based Herbicides: Divergence of Regulatory Decisions from Scientific Evidence. J Environ Anal Toxicol S4:006. doi:10.4172/2161-0525.S4-006. Séralini, G. E., E. Clair, et al. (2012). Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Food and Chemical Toxicology. Antoniou, M., M. Habib, et al. (2011). Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark?– Earth Open Source. Glyphosate in northern ecosystems Marjo Helander, Irma Saloniemi and Kari Saikkonen
15. Confronting contamination : 5 reasons to reject co-existence GRAIN | 28 April 2004 | Seedling – April 2004 — 5 reasons to reject co-existence ISIS Report 16/12/05 — GM Contamination Accelerating –No Co-Existence Possible Untried and untested GM crops are out of the bottle even in the UK where no GM crops are commercially grown. Rhea Gala The Myth of Coexistence:: Why Transgenic Crops Are Not Compatible With Agroecologically Based Systems of Production, MIGUEL A. ALTIERI Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 25, 4, 2005, pp.361-371 1aug2005 Heinemann, J.A. A typology of the effects of (trans)gene flow on the conservation and sustainable use of genetic resources. Rome: UN FAO;; 2007
16. GM WHEAT JOURNALISTS UNQUESTIONING AND SUPINE Lawrence Woodward, GM Education UK, date 1st June 2012
Joanna Blythman: GM crop trials are needless and reckless
17. The campaign for genetically modified rice is at the crossroads Tough Lessons From Golden Rice by Martin Enserink Golden Scare: A new genetically modified rice strain is breeding controversy Noemie Bisserbe, 22 Aug 2008 Schubert, D. The problem with nutritionally enhanced plants. J Med Food. 11:in press; 2008
18. Phillip Case, ‘GM wheat trial begins amid high security’, Farmers Weekly, 28 March 2012 The inside story on the GM wheat trial debate Friday, 25 May 2012 15:21 The inside story on the GM wheat trial debate Jonathan Matthews, The Ecologist, 25 May 2012
19. The Concordat relating to GM issues in the UK: Welsh Government: Genetically Modified Organisms
20. Testbiotech comment on EFSA´s draft Guidance for risk assessment of GMO EFSA´s Guidance needs clarification and cut off criteria ENSSER Comments on the EFSA Guidance on the Environmental Risk Assessment of Genetically Modified Plants
21. Seralini and Science: an Open Letter, Independent Science News, October 2, 2012 Pusztai A. and Bardocz S. (2006). GMO in animal nutrition: potential benefits and risks. In: Biology of Nutrition in Growing Animals, eds. R. Mosenthin, J. Zentek and T. Zebrowska, Elsevier Limited, pp. 513-540. Schubert D.R. (2008) The problem with nutritionally enhanced plants. J Med Food., 11: 601-605. Dona A. and Arvanitoyannis I.S. (2009) Health Risks of Genetically Modified Foods. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr., 49: 164–175.
22. IAASTD ed. International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development. Washington, D.C.: Island Press; 2009b Recent patterns of crop yield, growth, and stagnation: worldwide crop yields are decreasing Economic and Social Development Department World Agriculture: Towards 2015/2030. An FAO perspective How the Science Media Failed the IAASTD April 7, 2008 (Un)Sustainable Farming, Commentaries, Environment, Science Media No Comments Jonathan Latham and Allison Wilson GMOs: Seven Obvious Questions in Search of Straightforward Answers

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars
(2 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
About the Author

Sustainable Pulse is a global news outlet covering sustainable agriculture, GMOs and pesticides.

2 Comments so far. Feel free to join this conversation.

  1. Fred August 19, 2013 at 15:17 - Reply

    Anyone wondered why his sudden turnaround? well, like they say “if you want facts, follow the money”

  2. Pete McDonald August 20, 2013 at 05:05 - Reply

    I just wanted to say thanks. I love it when you lay down straight analyses as you have done here so epically. These little bits of clear reasoning and references may be just exactly what saves us in the end. Either way, I will spread them if you keep building them. Much much love and appreciation.

Leave A Response