MYTH #1: Genetic modification is no different than traditional breeding.

FACT: Traditional breeding combines different elements of a narrow gene pool whose characteristics are similar and predictable. A potato can cross with a different strain of potato but, in 10,000 years of evolution, it has never crossed with a chicken. Genetic modification shatters species boundaries forcing fish genes into a tomato or scorpion genes into corn. Dr. Jane Rissler of the Union of Concerned Scientists says that "the capacity to combine genes from dramatically different organisms has, at least until recently, little known precedent in evolution, a wholly new gene may interact with the rest of the plant genome in more unpredictable ways." With this new ability to wipe out species boundaries, Rissler says, "Genetic modification...can add more genes with harmful potential than can traditional breeders."
 

MYTH #2: Genetically modified crops will help the environment and reduce herbicide use.

FACT: A 1998 study of over 8,000 field trials, showed that herbicide use in genetically modified (GM) crops increased 2-5 times as compared to non-GM crops. In this study conducted by the University of Wisconsin and reviewed by Dr. Charles Benbrook, a former scientist with the US Department of Agriculture, herbicide use in GM crops was 10 times higher than in modern agricultural techniques like Integrated Weed management (IWM).

Many of the biotechnology companies trying to convince the public that GMOs are good for the environment are actually concealing a much different agenda: an effort to increase sales of herbicides owned and marketed by the very same companies. Biotechnology companies are also seeking permission for higher residues of these chemicals in GM food. The British Agrochemical Association predicted that herbicide sales in the US would benefit from the growth of GM herbicide resistant crops. Another negative impact of genetically modified crops will be the loss of a natural pesticide, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), that has been used responsibly by organic farmers for decades. Bt is now used widely by the biotechnology industry which inserts it into corn and potato plants. The widespread inclusion of the Bt gene in so many plants is expected to rapidly accelerate pest resistance and severely threaten the future of organic agriculture. Scientists say that with current practices, Bt will become useless within 10 years. Organic agriculture is threatened on an even wider front from genetically engineered crops because many GM crops can pollinate over large distances. In the spring of 1999, the Organic Crop Improvement Association in Saskatchewan and Manitoba warned organic canola farmers that if they lived within five to eight miles of a GM canola crop, they could have problems receiving certification. This genetic contamination of traditional crops is another threat to the future of sustainable agriculture.
 

MYTH #3: The Government ensures that genetic engineering is safe for the environment and human health.

FACT: No long-term independent testing is done by Health Canada, Environment Canada, Agriculture Canada or the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) to assess the impact of genetic modification on the environment and human health. The research to license a new genetically modified organism is paid for, and provided by, the producers themselves. The danger of letting industry police itself was starkly revealed during the 1996 bovine growth hormone scandal. During the debate, two Health Canada scientists spoke out saying that Monsanto had withheld critical evidence and may have tried to bribe Health Canada in order to achieve a quick approval.

There are many new studies on GMOs which expose environmental and health risks which were not known, or at least not admitted to, at the time of approval. A 1999 Cornell University study showed that GM crops can harm Monarch butterfly larvae. Unfortunately, this evidence was discovered years after the crops had been approved, despite calls at the time to study these very possibilities. A more responsible approach would be to investigate potential impacts before, not after, GMOs are irreversibly released into the environment and food supply. A recent health study from the Rowett Research Institute in Scotland has shown potential organ and immune system damage in rats fed GM potatoes. Despite this disturbing evidence, the CFIA refuses to carry out its own research to either prove or disprove these findings.

Current GM foods have avoided independent long-term health testing and slipped onto retail food store shelves because they are classified as "substantially equivalent" to their non-GM counterparts. Selected characteristics are compared between a GM product and a variety within the same species. If the two are "similar", the GM product is assumed to be no more dangerous than its non-GM counterpart. There is no comprehensive definition for substantial equivalence. A team of scientists writing in the prestigious British journal Nature recently categorized "substantial equivalence" as a "pseudo-scientific concept."

Groups such as the British Medical Association are concerned that the insertion of new genes into food may create unknown health impacts for humans.
 

MYTH #4: Biotechnology will solve world hunger. 

FACT: When Monsanto claimed, in its 1998 advertising campaign, that "slowing its [GMO] acceptance is a luxury our hungry world cannot afford," they were marketing an image, not stating a fact. Biotechnology companies are motivated by profit, not humanitarianism, and have no authority, nor scientific studies, to back their claim to be solving world hunger.

We currently produce one and a half times the amount of food needed to sufficiently feed the world, yet one in seven people are starving. Dr. Amartya Sen, who won the 1998 Nobel Economics Prize for 20 years of study into poverty and famine, notes that famine most often occurs in countries where there is a surplus of food.

In fact, cynicism about the benefits of GM crops has been expressed by the very countries where famine is worst. In 1998, at the United Nations, 24 African countries joined forces to say: We....strongly object that the image of the poor and hungry from our countries is being used by giant multinational corporations to push a technology that is neither safe, environmentally friendly, nor economically beneficial to us. We do not believe that such companies or gene technologies will help our farmers to produce the food that is needed in the 21st century. On the contrary, we think it will destroy the diversity, the local knowledge and the sustainable agricultural systems that our farmers have developed for millennia and that it will thus undermine our capacity to feed ourselves.

In fact biotechnology companies are now intent on eliminating one of the most important practices used by farmers around the world to save costs: saving seeds from one year to the next. In a bid to extract even more money from farmers, biotechnology companies do not allow farmers to save their GM seed. Companies also force farmers to sign a Technology Use Agreement (TUA) and pay an additional fee of $15-65/acre. As part of the same strategy, Monsanto has a patent for a "terminator seed" which renders seeds sterile and ensures farmers must buy more. For centuries, farmers have tried to breed seeds which are more fertile. The use of the TUA reverses that tradition.

Even if food scarcity was the issue, extensive scientific studies show that GM crops such as soybeans actually produce 5 per cent less yield than traditional alternatives. Equitable distribution of technology, and sustainable agriculture are the solutions to world hunger, not biotechnology.
 
 

MYTH #5: Separating GM food from non-GM would be too expensive for consumers. 

FACT: Consumers in the United Kingdom and Europe have not experienced any price increases as a result of the recent decisions to segregate GM food. Segregation is technically and practically possible and is already happening in Canada for the soybean export market to Europe. Any additional costs have been absorbed by the European producers and retailers. This is because the crops from farmers fields account for only 10 per cent of the cost of processed foods with transportation, processing and other costs making up the rest. When GM crops are segregated from non-GM crops, there is only a two per cent increase in the total cost which European retailers, not consumers and farmers, have absorbed. 

Indeed, segregation is not only possible, it is vital in order to track the source of future environmental and health problems resulting from genetically modified organisms.
 
 

MYTH #6: Agricultural biotechnology is a growth industry. 

FACT: The Deutsche Bank of Germany recently released a report entitled "AgBiotech: Thanks, But No Thanks?", which outlined the failure of agricultural biotechnology companies to perform up to expectation. The Deutsche Bank's Tim Ramey said, "Once testing for GMOs becomes standard, the market for U.S. GMO-free soybeans and corn will explode." 

Monsanto's stock price has dropped 30 per cent in the last year and other major biotechnology companies, such as Novartis and AstraZeneca, are considering selling the agricultural divisions of their own companies. The real area for growth is in organic agriculture, a sector which is expanding at a rate of 20 per cent per year in the UK, France, and Austria. Here in Canada, the Federal government spends less than half a million per year promoting organic agriculture, compared to $314 million per year on agricultural biotechnology. Provincial grants add an estimated $250 million to the total.