Where is the proof of the safety of GMOs?
Do we have any proof of the safety of GM crops? If not, then please listen to those who are raising concerns
The Business Standard published an article, "Despite opposition, GMO may be the way forward", on 9 May 2024, three days after the joint Press conference of UBINIG, BELA, Anti-GMO forum, Nayakrishi and Nagorik Uddog. The press conference was organised particularly to express concerns about the promotion of two genetically modified food crops, Golden Rice and Bt Brinjal, in Bangladesh.
Bt Brinjal was approved for commercial field cultivation in 2013, while Golden Rice is awaiting approval from the National Committee on Biosafety (NCB) of the Ministry of Environment.
The press conference organisers raised concerns about the biosafety of GMO crops. The context of the press conferences was prompted by the recent Philippine Court of Appeals (CA) cease-and-desist order on the commercial propagation of two genetically modified crops—golden rice and Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) eggplant.
The court, acting to safeguard the citizens from the potential harms of GMOs, was explicit in its juridical intent. The court stated that there is clearly a lack of "full scientific certainty" on the impact of GM food products. The concern is over the inadequacy of the scientific evidence about the safety of GMOs.
Keep updated, follow The Business Standard's Google news channel
Consequently, the court is obliged by the Constitution to protect the health of the citizens. This is precisely the issue in Bangladesh: there is no credible scientific evidence about health and environmental safety once these GMOs are cultivated openly in the farmers' fields on thousands of hectares of land and promoted commercially, creating both real and potential risks for those who consume them.
If the so-called "science" is manipulated by the big tech transnational corporations to secure a market for their products at the expense of the real and potential damage to the environment, ecology, health, and economy of the non-GMO farming communities, Bangladesh has a responsibility to protect its citizens.
We welcome focused debates rather than "reaction" and uncritical promotion of GMOs, ignoring the biosafety and health of all life forms, including the human species, as we said in the press conference.
Jannatul Naym Pieal, the article's writer, talked to the promoters of these two GM crops and concluded that no matter what the substance of the concerns expressed, the GM crops are "successful."
The lack of "adequate" scientific evidence of biosafety, as well as the agronomic value of Golden Rice and Bt Brinjal, are highly contentious issues. Allergic reactions, toxicity, birth defects, autism, and other health complications are major concerns in public health. So we need evidence, caution, and prudence before we claim GMOs are "successful".
Unfortunately, corporate science is investing more in false claims and propaganda than in producing scientific evidence on the safety and agronomic values of GMOs; Golden Rice and Bt brinjal are no exceptions.
The verdict of the Philippine Court of Appeals is, therefore, very critical and significant for Asia in general and countries like Bangladesh in particular. The juridical remedy is difficult to obtain in Bangladesh due to the lack of laws, the absence of democratic institutions, appropriate regulatory processes and institutions, and so on. The protests of the people and farmers have not been heard, and there is hardly any institutional mechanism to do so.
The so-called "science" is weaponised against the vital interests of a country, such as seeds, genetic resources, and the local knowledge systems. The concerns about GMOs are multiplied. The priorities and interests of the farmers are always by-passed. Farming communities and concerned citizens inevitably had to resist what would inevitably harm them.
Three conditions regarding transgenics that could potentially be harmful and cause bio-pollution in a densely biodiverse country like Bangladesh must be considered. The precautionary principle must be applied: uncertainty, the possibility of irreversible harm, and the possibility of serious harm.
The Philippine court found that "no consensus" was reached on the safety or harmful effects of golden rice and Bt eggplant on humans and the environment. The court further said, "While it may be argued that the trials on Golden Rice and Bt eggplant were conducted precisely to determine the effects or risks of GMOs (genetically modified organisms), as well as to obtain data and information thereon, it must be equally remembered that the overall safety guarantee thereof is still unknown." [The Philippine Daily Inquirer, 24 April , 2024]
Does Bangladesh have any proof of safety in terms of health and environmental concerns? It was not even examined. The Bt brinjal was approved in October 2013; field cultivation started in 2014. Transgenic seeds are given to farmers every Boro season. There is no report on environmental and health safety.
On the contrary, its success is "publicised" in the biotechnology media, such as "Frontiers and Alliance for Science" and in some national media. The propaganda reports contradict the situation prevailing in the farmers' fields [see www.ubinig.org]. The propaganda reports talk about the performance of control of fruit and shoot borer [FSB] insects and the "reduction" in the use of pesticides.
The authorities in the Ministry of Agriculture are not even complying with the approval conditions for Bt brinjal. It may be recalled that there were seven conditions, out of which three were very important for biosafety regulations.
Condition # 3 was: "To monitor biosafety measures in places with limited cultivation, BARI must form a field-level biosafety committee with the local agriculture extension officer, the scientific officer of BARI experimental center, the district or divisional officer of the Environment Directorate and the Upazila Administrative Officer and submit it to NCB". According to UBINIG field monitoring of the areas of Bt brinjal cultivation, no such committee was found.
Condition # 5: "In the case of risks to health and environment are created, the applicant institution and the relevant ministry must take immediate action and implement the necessary plan so that the risks can be prevented from spreading and can be remedied. The applicant organisation must bear the responsibility of the potential environmental risks or situation under the Biosafety Rules". No such initiative was taken by the relevant ministry.
Condition # 6: "The applicant organisation must take effective measures for labelling so that Bt brinjal can be marketed as per Biosafety rules." The farmers cultivating Bt brinjals were not told about the mandatory labelling of Bt brinjal, so those were in the market without labels.
From the experience of about ten years of Bt brinjal field cultivation in Bangladesh, there have been no efforts from the relevant ministries and local authorities to follow the biosafety rules. There are no reports or discussions about the field trials except the "claims" on the economics of Bt brinjal marketing.
It also clearly shows that countries like Bangladesh are still not capable of handling the biosafety requirements for GMOs. These are not just about non-compliance with the approval conditions but also the incapability of the agricultural ministry.
So, where is the proof of the safety of the GMO crops that are being imposed on Bangladesh? The claim that Bt Brinjal does not require pesticides and, therefore, is safe is false. To our knowledge, no health safety study has been conducted by BARI so far.
The claim is only made based on the so-called reduction of the use of pesticides. Bt Brinjal may not need direct spraying of pesticides, but the plant is toxic. To study health risks, it is necessary to evaluate the longest toxicological tests performed with mammal blood analysis. These are subchronic 90-day tests with goats, rabbits and rats, according to scientists.
In India, the Doctors for Food and Biosafety (2010) stated that there is a non-cognisance of existing information on health hazards associated with Bt Brinjal and GM food. Based on existing knowledge and clinical experience, the adverse health effects are multiple, including: 1. Damage to fertility and reproductive health; 2. Multi-organ damage, notably to the Liver, Kidneys, heart, adrenal glands, spleen intestine and hematopoietic systems (organs related to detoxification of food/ poisons) and Immune reactions and allergies.
All Bt proteins are foreign and different proteins, and several studies have shown that they provoke immunological reactions such as respiratory allergies like asthma and skin allergies.
Before the approval of Bt Brinjal in Bangladesh, international independent scientists sent letters to Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina in August 2013 warning about health and environmental risks. According to Professor David Schubert, Salk Institute for Biological Studies, USA, brinjal is native to Bangladesh, and GM genes would unquestionably contaminate and degrade the native populations.
He also said that the GM brinjal expressing Bt protein poses a serious threat to the health of those who consume it. The claim that any GM plant expressing Bt toxin, particularly Bt brinjal, has been thoroughly tested for safety and is therefore, safe to eat is not true. There is no rigorous testing of any GM crop in the United States or elsewhere.
Eleven internationally reputed scientists asserted that it is logically false to claim that there is no evidence of illness following the introduction of a GE product. Therefore, to prove the product is safe would require a well-designed experiment with proper controls.
They warned of potential consequences to the health of the Bangladeshi population if the introduction of Bt brinjal is allowed, as enormous numbers of individuals are going to consume amounts of Bt toxin that are thousands of times higher than any time previously in the short history of this GM technology.
These scientists are Dr Michael Antoniou (UK), Professor Susan Bardoczu (Hungary), Dr Pushpa M. Bhatgava (India), Dr Judy Carmen (Australia), Dr Jack A. Heinemann (New Zealand), Professor Hans R Herren (US), Dr Angelika Hilbeck (Switzerland), Dr Robert Mann (New Zealand), Professor Arpad Pestzei (UK), Dr David Schubert (US), and Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini.
Unfortunately, although they wrote well ahead of the approval in October 2013, there was no response from the government to such scientific warnings.
So, do we have any proof of the safety of GM crops? If not, then please listen to the court's decision in the Philippines and to the activists who are raising concerns.
Farida Akhter is the Executive Director of UBINIG.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of The Business Standard.
