Publication Name

Previous Page

Next Page

Page Background

L’A

TLAS

DU

M

ONDE

DIPLOMATIQUE

I

33

though this may change in the future

with specially engineered plants capa-

ble of trapping pollution or surviving

droughts. But above all it is an uphill

struggle forming an opinion amidst

the conflicting views offered by experts,

regardless of whether debate focuses

on the consequences of GM crops

for the environment, public health or

the economy. As with so many issues

related to living organisms, it is hard

to distinguish between rational and

emotional responses.

Ecologists, seed merchants and

even scientists are in complete disa-

greement about the environmental

impact of GM organisms. Their dis-

semination by pollen is a potential risk

for biodiversity. Observations in the

United Kingdom and Germany have

confirmed the risk of a “bio-invasion”.

InMexico, where humans first cultiva-

ted maize, the discovery that foreign

genes introduced by US imports

had contaminated traditional strains

prompted a public outcry. Rather than

attempting to explain what is going

on, GM advocates maintain that such

crops reduce the need for fertilisers

and pesticides, limit soil erosion and

enable simpler farming techniques.

There is still no certainty about the

long-term impact of GMorganisms on

public health, no systematic studies

having been carried out, even in the

USwhere consumers have been eating

GM foods for years. Some experiments

– open to doubt – suggest that chan-

ges have been detected in the blood

and kidneys of laboratory rats. On the

other hand some people claim that

GM crops reduce mycotoxin (a form

of fungus) contamination, which in

turn lowers the risk of cancer.

Even the economic benefits are

open to dispute. In South Africa the

spread of insect pests (tarnished plant

bugs) wiped out any benefit some

small producers might have derived

from investing expensive GM seeds.

In other cases (fruit rot, vine growth

malformation) a clear improvement in

yields has been observed. Either way,

GM crops seem certain to increase

poor countries’ dependence on a few

giant firms such asMonsanto or Bayer,

long before they end the uneven distri-

bution of food across the planet.

The precautions taken in Europe

– special labelling, refusal by about 50

regions to authorise GM crops – and

the destruction of trial crops by French

environmental activists, are holding

back research into their impact on

biodiversity without stopping imports

of genetically modified seeds or pro-

ducts. There is a genuine risk that GM

organisms become so widespread that

they pass the point of no return, before

governments have taken even themost

elementary precautions, equivalent to

the tests preceding the public launch

of new drugs.

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

Les cinq plus gros producteurs d’OGM

>

Inf’OGM :

>

GeneWatch :

www.genewatch.org

>

Organic Consumers :

www.organicconsumers.org

>

Comité de recherche et d’information

indépendantes sur le génie génétique (CRRI-

GEN) :

www.crii-gen.org

>

Site interministériel sur les OGM :

www.

Sur la Toile