Why Genetically Modified Crops Pose a Threat to Peasants, Food Sovereignty, Health, and Biodiversity on the Planet   Introduction Almost twenty years of genetically modified crops… What have we gained? Contrary to what companies promised, official statistics from the United States—the leading producer of genetically modified (GM) crops in the world—demonstrate that the truth of GM crops is that they produce less per hectare than the seeds that were already available on the market, but have resulted in an exponential increase in the use of agritoxins (Benbrook, 2012; Gurian-Sherman, 2009). They have also had serious negative impacts on both public health1 and the environment in every country where they have been grown on a large scale. Genetically modified crops have been a key instrument to facilitate a greater corporate hold on the history of food and agriculture. Six transnational corporations control all the GM crops commercially grown in the world. The same six corporations are the greatest global manufacturers of agrochemicals, which explains why 85% of GM crops are manipulated to resist large doses of herbicides and pesticides, since this is the greatest profit area (ETC Group, 2013b). Have they helped reduce hunger around the world? No. In addition, as a result of the advancement of industrialization of the food chain at the hands of agribusiness corporations since 1996—the year when genetically modified crops started being grown—the number of undernourished and obese people—a phenomenon that is now synonymous to poverty, and not wealth—has increased (FAO, 2012; OMS, 2012). GM crop cultivation accelerated the displacement of small and mid-sized producers and impoverished them, while replacing a considerable part of the workforce with machinery, thus increasing rural unemployment. For example, in Argentina, GM crops and their so-called “sowing pools” (pools de siembra) led to a veritable “reverse agrarian reform,” eliminating a large part of small and mid-sized agricultural establishments. According to the 1988 and 2002 censuses, in those years 87,000 such establishments disappeared, of which 75,293 were smaller than 200 hectares—a trend that continues to this day (Teubal, 2006). The consequence is that, today, 80% of farmed land is leased to 4,000 investment funds. This is not a model for food production; it is an agricultural platform for speculation. 1 (cid:0) These impacts are evident in the case of populations directly affected by the increase in the use of agritoxins in areas where GM crops are grown. In addition, many studies point to other impacts on human health, extrapolated from the results of experiments with laboratory animals. 1 They have aggravated problems for the basis of survival on the planet. In the same period when GM crops started being grown, the climate crisis and eight of the planet’s nine most serious environmental problems—defined by the Stockholm Resilience Center as the “planet’s limits,” which we cannot exceed if we want the Earth to survive—greatly worsened. Seven of these problems—climate change, loss of biodiversity, ocean acidification, pollution and scarcity of fresh water, soil erosion, excessive amounts of phosphorus and nitrogen dumped in the oceans and soil, and chemical pollution—are directly related to the corporate industrial food production system, of which GM crops are the central paradigm (Rockström, 2009; ETC Group, 2013a, GRAIN, 2011). Do we need genetically modified crops? A large variety of peasant and small-scale food systems currently feeds 70% of the world’s population—30 to 50% of that is provided by small farms, 15 to 20% by urban orchards, 5 to 10% by artisanal fisheries, and 10 to 15% by hunting and wildcrafting (ETC Group, 2013a). They are healthier forms of food production, mostly free of agritoxins and genetically modified organisms (GMOs). On the contrary, food products from the agro-industrial food system only reach 30% of the population, but use 75 to 80% of the world’s arable land and 70% of water and fuel for agricultural use (GRAIN, 2014). From harvest to homes, 50% of food products from the industrial chain end up in the trash. Feeding the world does not require uniform, high-tech and high-risk crops in industrial systems. It requires a diversity of seeds in the hands of millions of peasants and small- and mid-scale farmers. The advance of agribusiness corporations using GM crops and agritoxins poses a serious threat to this option, which already feeds the poorest populations and most of humanity. 2 1.  An  Inexact  and  Uncertain  Technology Contrary to what the biotechnology industry claims, GMO technology is an inexact method that provides no control over its consequences. Isolating different DNA sequences from different organisms and putting them together to form a transgene is quite simple. However, up to now, it has been impossible to introduce this intact sequence in a specific locus of the genome. It is also impossible to control how many intact copies or parts of the modified sequence will be integrated in the host organism’s genome. And it is even harder to avoid interactions between these sequences and the host’s other genes. It is impossible to control the gene expression of the inserted transgenes or their dispersion or rupture in the new loci of the genome. Because of this, it is impossible to predict the transgenes’ impact on the genomes or genetically modified organisms and on the environments where they are released. In these artificially modified organisms, life restrictions have been broken—restrictions that are not yet well understood by science. They will give rise to unprecedented forms of biological interaction and evolution, with unpredictable consequences and uncertainties for biodiversity (Filipecki and Malepszy, 2006). Releasing GMOs into the environment is a global experiment that affects the natural dynamics of life and humanity as a whole, unilaterally decided by a handful of corporations and some governments. In contrast with the scientific evidence that corroborates the above, the sectors that defend genetic engineering assume that genetically modified organisms will behave as they do in the lab once released into nature—that is, that they are equivalent to organisms that are not genetically modified. They claim that GMOs “are natural” and that they “are new varieties,” assuming that the experimental technique used is precise, safe, and predictable, and that it is equivalent to conventional improvements in agriculture. This is a serious mistake and demonstrates “lack of awareness” on the part of the biotechnological field of the theories and knowledge of contemporary biology. The notions put forth by those who produce GMOs do not consider the natural restrictions to genetic recombination, the role of time in the genesis of biodiversity, and an assessment of the natural mechanisms that sustain it through organic evolution. Both the evolutionary process and the varieties of the species are based on sexual reproduction, the recombination of genetic material, and biological and environmental mechanisms that restrict and regulate the genome’s dynamics in each generation and, through them, throughout evolution. Furthermore, recombinant DNA biotechnology has broken important restrictions to evolutionary recombination of the genetic material, without yet understanding the nature or role of many of these restrictions established by organic evolution itself. It is vital to understand that, in any kind of genome modification through engineering, the biological time necessary to stabilize varieties and the evolutionary process and the history of the species—which are unaltered by conventional improvement methods— disappear for the sake of technological procedures. This happens because the aim is instant genome manipulation to obtain “new varieties.” 3 To insist that traditional procedures for crop adaptation and improvement of food species are comparable to techniques of genetic modification of organisms by design carried out by industry is a reductionist, obsolete, and irresponsible idea, considering what we already know. To claim that the improvements carried out by humans in agriculture for 10,000 years and modification by design in the lab are the same is to ignore the human farming culture developed by millions of peasants in thousands of different biogeographic and climatic situations, which has respected natural mechanisms throughout all those years, selecting new varieties brought about by interbreeding until the adequate phenotype is found and stabilized. These processes of adaptation and adjustment of crop characteristics carried out by agrarian communities throughout time continuously test their impacts on human health and the environments where the new varieties are generated. More importantly, this improvement is not the consequence of a simple change in the DNA sequence or the incorporation or removal of genes, but of the consolidation of an adjustment in the behavior of the genome as a whole (the notion of a fluid genome) that respects nature’s own restrictions to recombination and, therefore, makes the resulting variety useful and predictable (it is for that reason that it becomes a new variety). This adjustment can involve genes associated to the new phenotype, but accompanied by many adjustments of an epigenetic nature (non-genetic factors or chemical processes in the development of organisms) which are mostly unknown. Thus, a new variety represents an integral improvement of the phenotype for a given condition where, given its fluidity, the entire genome was most probably affected by a physiological adjustment in accordance to nature’s time and respecting the history of each species. This new knowledge of genetics is not taken into account in the analysis, projection, and assessment of the risks of GMOs developed and released, since, in the conceptual framework that sustains genetically modified organisms, a gene or set of genes introduced in a plant or animal embryo in a laboratory suffices for analysis. By definition, with GMOs the natural conditions of natural regulatory biological processes and the “fine epigenetic adjustments” that lead to the development of phenotypes in nature are not respected, contrary to what happens with traditional improvement and the natural evolution of organisms. In effect, GMO technology violates biological processes through rudimentary and dangerous procedures with unpredictable consequences involving the combination of genetic material from different species. Transgenesis not only alters the modified genome’s structure but also makes it unstable through time, produces undesired disruptions or activations of the host’s genes, and directly or indirectly affects the operational state of the entire genome and the regulatory networks that maintain its dynamic balance, as demonstrated by the variation in the phenotype response of the same genotype to environmental changes (Álvarez-Buylla 2009, 2013). The classical notion of the gene understood as the basic unit of a rigid genome, conceived as a “Meccano,” as a predictable machine based on gene sequences and the assumption that its products can be isolated, recombined, and manipulated without consequences, is an expression of an obsolete scientific reductionism that has been 4 widely refuted and whose falsehood has been proven. This epistemic reasoning has been abundantly critiqued by thinkers such as Richard Lewontin,2 among others, and refuted by numerous scientific articles on the importance of the interactions between genes and the importance of regulatory mechanisms of gene expression at the epigenetic level, which demonstrate dynamic changes in the effects of an organism’s own genes as well as the genomes in their responses to the environment and even to food consumption. More than a scientific viewpoint, the epistemological insistence on considering GMOs as “natural” varieties instead of regarding them as foreign bodies or industrial artifacts that, when installed in nature by human hands, alter the course of evolution, is an arrogant and presumptuous position that disregards the most current scientific knowledge. In most cases, this apparent ignorance is fueled by conflicts of interest, since those who uphold such viewpoints have relations of direct or indirect financing by agribusiness transnational corporations that profit from GMOs. In other cases, pro- GMO scientists defend their career, founded on outdated paradigms, and their prestige, which depends on the same agro-industrial interests, as well as the possibility of doing business by licensing their patents to large corporations. Complexity is not a theoretical position, but an integral configuration of nature. Breaking nature apart into small pieces in order to “understand it” is increasingly insufficient. What the GMO industry intends by avoiding the debate on the logic that sustains it is to stage a turnabout for a technology that was born in the lab to achieve a limited understanding of molecular processes, extending it into nature without credible or predictable criteria. We insist: the process of generating organisms is indecipherable. We can study it, but we must take into account the limits that the fluid genome’s physiology has demonstrated. Altering an organism with a piece of its own DNA or that of another organism will affect its entire physiology, and using the natural environment—or human diet—as a laboratory is an unacceptable experiment. A number of studies have researched this type of unpredictable alteration. A very illustrative one has to do with the alteration of the protein profiles of a variety of GM maize (MON810), which expresses 32 different proteins, as compared to the protein expression of conventional maize (Agapito-Tenfen et al, 2013). GMOs, which are today in the eye of the storm, bring to the forefront that strange and increasingly evident relationship between reductionist scientific thought and the ideology that sustains neoliberal hegemony. The need to concoct a legitimizing scientific narrative that disavows all impacts of GMOs on nature and health, that upholds the oversimplified claim that non-GM foods are equivalent to GMOs, that defines the latter simply as new varieties, is equivalent to the silences on the complexity of the genome and the consequences of interfering in it. 2 (cid:0) Especially in his book Not in Our Genes (2009), Lewontin has denounced the theoretical shortcomings of genetic reductionism. 5 According to the notion of “genomic fluidity,” genes are no longer ontologically defined, but are part of a relational complexity that defies classical hierarchical linearity, replacing it with a complex functional network. Among other examples of complexity are the controlled changes during DNA development (amplification or reduction) in normal embryo cell through the regulation of the cell environment, trans-generational epigenetic inheritance, or the modulation regulatory processes (cytoplasmic and/or nuclear) of the products of transcription, which sustain the variability of phenotypes. These are examples of genomic fluidity, whereby genes are subordinated to cell signals to sculpt each phenotype (Fox Keller, 2013). In short, industrial agriculture and the introduction of GM crops have not only filled the environment with agritoxins and transformed the global food production into a merchandise in the interest of transnational corporations but also created the artifice of a science to legitimate the procedures used for genome modification, disregarding their uncertainties and risks. This genetic colonialism purposefully ignores current genetic knowledge in order to justify genome manipulation, defying the integrity of ecosystems and putting human beings at risk. Transgenesis as an industrial procedure applied in nature is not very scientific and quite rudimentary. “State of the art” technologies to generate GMOs not only collide with peasant and ancient knowledge but also conflict with the most advanced scientific views of biological complexity. This conceptual frailty calls for scientific support of transgenesis, displacing it from the realm of science to that of profit-seeking speculation. 2.  More  than  an  agricultural  technology,  GM  crops  are  an  instrument  of   corporate  control  over  agriculture Never in the history of agriculture and food has there been such a large concentration of seeds—the key to the entire food web—in the hands of such a small number of corporations. The six largest manufacturers of agrochemicals in the world control 76% of the global agritoxin market. The same six corporations are among the largest seed companies in the world and control 60% of that market. And these six corporations control 100% of the global GM seed market (ETC Group, 2013a and 2013b). Since practically the same corporations control the development of GM crops and the trade of agritoxins and seeds—both GM and not—they prioritize the promotion of GM crops for two reasons: a) since they are resistant to certain herbicides, they guarantee the sale of seeds and farm inputs; b) since they are a product of engineering, seeds are patented, which means that it is illegal for farmers to store a part of their own harvest for the next sowing season, thus guaranteeing new sales for those companies every season, and even additional profits from suing farmers whose plots are “contaminated” by 6 patented transgenes. Hundreds of lawsuits have been filed against farmers in the United States, and this is the road for all countries that adopt them (Center for Food Safety, 2013). In order to ensure complete control over farmers, agribusiness corporations also developed a technology that acts as a “biological patent”: Genetic Use Restriction Technology (GURT), commonly known as “Terminator” technologies. With this method they develop suicide seeds—they can be planted, they can yield seeds, but they become sterile once they are harvested, forcing farmers to purchase new seeds for each sowing. This technology was internationally condemned as immoral and there is a UN moratorium against it, but as a result of corporate pressure it could become legal in Brazil in the next few months (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2000; ETC Group, 2014). Because of all this, allowing GMOs in a country is equivalent to relinquishing sovereignty and decisionmaking on a crucial aspect of survival such as food, and putting it in the hands of a few transnational corporations. It violates the rights of farmers to replant their own seeds, a right even recognized by the FAO, as a legacy of the 10,000 years of agriculture with which they have contributed to the sustenance of all of humanity. 3.  The  reality:  they  produce  less There are several research studies on the productivity of GM crops (from the Universities of Kansas, Nebraska, and Wisconsin, among others) that demonstrate that, on average, GM crops produce less per hectare than hybrid crops. The broadest and most detailed study on the productivity of GM crops until now was coordinated by Dr. Doug Gurian-Sherman, from the Union of Concerned Scientists in the United States, and is entitled “Failure to Yield.” In it, 20 years of experimentation and 13 years of commercialization of GM maize and soy in the United States are analyzed, using official figures from that country (Gurian-Sherman, 2009). The study shows that GM crops played a marginal role in increasing agricultural production in the United States, while conventional hybrids or organic crops contributed significantly to increasing agricultural performance in the country as a whole. In the case of soy, GMOs lowered net production per hectare (a fact that is repeated everywhere else), while herbicide-tolerant maize resulted in neither an increase nor a decrease, and pesticide-tolerant maize (resistant to the Bt toxin) resulted in a slight annual increase of 0.2 to 0.3%, which gives a total of 3 to 4% in the 13 years analyzed. This increase was observed in areas with very frequent onsets of the plague for which they are manipulated, which practically does not exist in the countries of the South. The most significant fact is that the total increase in the productivity of maize per hectare in the United States in those years was 13%. In other words, 75 to 80% of the increase was due to non-GM varieties and production methods. In short: if no GM crops had been planted in the United States, the total production of maize would have been greater. 7 4.  They  use  much  more,  increasingly  dangerous  agritoxins GM crops have resulted in an unprecedented use of agritoxins (increasingly toxic herbicides and pesticides). This translates into extremely serious environmental and public health problems. In the three main GM crop producing countries (the United States, Brazil, and Argentina), which together produce almost 80% of the global harvest, there are already clear and worrisome evidences to that effect. A scientific report published in 2012 (Benbrook) analyzes the use of agritoxins in the United States in the production of GM soy, maize, and cotton from 1996 to 2011, and it demonstrates that GM varieties increased the use of agritoxins by more than 183 million kilograms in those eighteen years. The United States is the largest and oldest producer of GM crops, which means that the data on their performance in that country is globally significant. The report specifies that, while crops with the Bt toxin may have reduced the use of pesticides by 56 million kg, herbicide-tolerant crops increased the use of agritoxins by 239 million kg, which explains the total average increase of 183 million kg of agritoxins in 16 years. The study demonstrates that the decrease in the use of herbicides with Bt crops—which has been widely publicized by the biotechnology industry to argue that GM crops reduce the use of agritoxins—has been declining every year, because the resistance generated during plagues requires ever-increasing amounts of pesticides. On the other hand, the industry is removing from the market the seeds that only contain the Bt gene. The new generation of GM seeds contains a combination of the Bt toxin and genes tolerant to one or more herbicides, thus prioritizing an intensive use of those agritoxins. In the case of Bt maize, the magnitude of the increase of ever-more toxic herbicides “invalidates any modest, punctual decrease in the use of agritoxins that may have occurred in the 16 years analyzed” (Benbrook, 2012). On the other hand, because of the intensive use of herbicides there are dozens of weeds that are resistant to agritoxins, which has led companies to genetically manipulate crops to make them tolerant to increasingly stronger herbicides, such as 2,4-D (one of the components of Agent Orange, used as a biological weapon during the Vietnam War), ammonium glyphosate, dicamba, and others. This new generation of herbicides is much more toxic and has a much greater carcinogenic potential. Farmers in the United States have expressly stated their opposition because fumigating with them causes neighboring crops to wither. Charles Benbrook argues that, if crops resistant to 2,4-D are approved, the use of this potent agritoxin will increase by 50% (Union for Concerned Scientists, 2013). In Brazil, after GM crops started being planted in 2003, the use of agritoxins increased by more than 200% and continues to do so at an annual rate of approximately 15%. Brazil became the largest consumer of agritoxins in the world since 2008, using more than 850 million liters per year, which is equivalent to 20% of the world’s production. The average rate of consumption of agritoxins in Brazil is 5.2 kg of active ingredient per hectare, which, together with Argentina, is one of the highest in the world (Menten, 2008). In studies conducted in Mato Grosso, the Brazilian state with the greatest production of 8 industrial agriculture and GM soy, serious health and environmental harms from the use of agritoxins have been recorded, not only in rural areas but also in urban contexts. In 2006, in the municipality of Lucas do Rio Verde, Mato Grosso, toxic rain was observed in the urban region due to fumigations with Paraquat in the area by plantation owners seeking to dry the soy for harvest. The wind spread the toxic cloud, drying thousands of decorative plants and gardens, 180 medicinal plant beds, and all the orchards in 65 small farms around the city, which has a population of 37,000 inhabitants (Pignati, Dores, Moreira et al., 2013). Afterwards, studies conducted between 2007 and 2010 in the same municipality discovered contamination with several agritoxins in 83% of all wells supplying drinking water (city and schools), in 56% of water samples in school patios, and in 25% of air samples taken in a 2-year period. High percentages of residues of one or more agritoxins were also found in human breast milk, urine, and blood (Pignati, Dores, Moreira et al., 2013). In Argentina, 23 out of 33 million cultivated hectares are planted with GM crops, which has resulted in an exponential increase in the use of agritoxins, especially glyphosate. 250 million liters of glyphosate are used per year, out of a total of 600 million liters of agrochemicals on a surface populated by 11 million inhabitants, which is equivalent to 6 liters of glyphosate and 10 liters of agrochemicals per inhabitant. In 2012 new versions of soy and maize seeds were approved, which include several “stacked” genetic modifications; i.e. they combine the expression of the Bt insecticidal toxin with resistance to glyphosate and glufosinate herbicides (the latter, as a competitive inhibitor of glutamine, has been shown to produce malformations in laboratory animals). This will allow producers to fumigate these crops with both agrochemicals simultaneously in the near future, which will increase the contamination level and the risks to environmental and human health. 5.  They  pose  serious  risks  to  agrobiodiversity  and  the  environment Superweeds. The existence of at least 24 invasive weeds resistant to glyphosate and other agritoxins has been documented, as a direct result of the massive increase in the use of poisons that goes hand in hand with GM crops. In a study published in December 2013, the United States’ Union of Concerned Scientists indicates that there are resistant weeds in 50% of the country’s farms and, in the southern states, where the problem is greater, there is one or more glyphosate-resistant weed in 92% of all establishments (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2013). Similar situations are found in Argentina, Brazil, and India, where invasive, resistant weeds are an increasingly serious problem, both because of the number of species and their geographic dispersion. Contamination of native and criolla seeds. Erosion and potentially irreversible alterations of natural and agricultural biodiversity is a serious global problem, gravely worsened by GM crops (Alvarez Buylla, Piñeyro Nelson, 2009). Biodiversity and local and peasant knowhow are the keys to the variety and diversity of adaptations to climate change. With GM contamination, this diversity is at risk, both because of the consequences to plants and because it leaves peasants either with damaged seeds containing patented recombinant sequences (transgenes) or without access to their own seeds. It is important to emphasize that GMOs are not “just another option,” as could be said 9 of hybrid crops. Once GM crops are planted in the fields, contamination of other non- GM crops is inevitable, as is the accumulation of the recombinant sequences in the genomes of the varieties, whether they are hybrids, natives, or criollas; whether it results from pollination through winds and insects or from the handling, transportation, and storage of grains and seeds. In addition to affecting biodiversity, GMO contamination has led to lawsuits for “inappropriate use” of the patented genes promoted by agribusiness corporations. Although the commercial planting of GM crops is only allowed in 27 countries and 98% of them are in only 10 countries, 396 cases of GM crop contamination have been discovered in over 50 nations (GeneWatch, 2013). Contamination of criolla seeds entails a new risk for them—GMOs contain genes of species that would never interbreed naturally with the crops. There are scientific studies (Kato, 2004) that indicate that the accumulation of transgenes can have serious negative effects, including deformities or sterilization of native or criolla varieties when they reject the genetic material unknown to the species. This has serious economic, social, and cultural impacts on peasants and indigenous peoples, who developed all of the seeds available today and who continue to preserve them. Especially worrisome is GM contamination at the centers of origin and diversity of the crops, such as maize in Mesoamerica and rice in Asia. In Mexico, which is the center of origin for maize, the issue is GM contamination of the genetic and biodiversity reservoir of one of the three most important grains in the diet of the entire planet, which means that consequences are not only local, but global as well. The same would apply in the case of Asia if GM rice were to be approved there (ETC Group, 2012). In Mexico, GM contamination of maize was detected before it was approved for experimental planting. Given the imminence of its commercial release, the Union of Scientists Committed to Society (UCSS-Mexico) drafted a report on the multiple risks to biodiversity, diet, health, and food sovereignty posed by the release of GM maize. Based on that report, the UCSS delivered a request to the president of that country not to allow that crop’s commercial release. The report and the request had the support of over 3,000 scientists in Mexico and the world (UCSS, 2012). In 2013, the UCSS and several universities in the country published an extensive compilation of the problems related to the release of GM maize in Mexico, with the participation of 50 scientists who specialize in the topic (Álvarez-Buylla and Piñeyro-Nelson, 2013). In addition to a large number of scientists, the vast majority of Mexico’s population, including its 60 indigenous groups, peasant and family farming organizations, consumer organizations, unions, intellectuals, artists, and many other social, cultural and educational movements and organizations oppose the release of GM crops in their centers of origin, a position shared by the Mexican state’s technical bodies that are co- responsible for policies regarding biodiversity. Water and soil pollution. The massive use of agritoxins, as well as the adjuvants and surfactants added to them, has resulted in a fast and intensive pollution of waters and soils, even far away from the 10