Genetically modified crops offer many benefits, but the hidden concerns behind them are also worth paying attention to.

Text/ Chen Ju-wei (founder of the Campus Lunch Goes Non-GMO action team)

Today (12/29) the Economic Daily News published the article The Beauty and Sorrow of GMOs, dictated by Professor Lin Chi-hsing, questioning Taiwan, China's anti-GMO movement. In view of the fact that Professor Lin has repeatedly published related arguments in newspapers and media (Gene Food No Match for Election Genes/Playing the Sentiment Card Misleads the Direction of Truth-Seeking), and we have always believed that more public dialogue, the revelation of scientific evidence and the interpretation of information can enable the public to adopt appropriate precautionary and preventive measures in the face of the uncertain risks brought by GM crops. Therefore, it is truly necessary to clarify the several arguments about the safety of GM crops mentioned in the article The Beauty and Sorrow of GMOs:

Explanation One: Genetic modification is not traditional breeding

Professor Lin believes that "traditional breeding is genetic modification on a grand scale, and if one questions modern GMOs, one must question traditional crops and foods even more." He also states that "Taiwan, China's fruit crops are renowned worldwide thanks to excellent interbreeding technology."

In response, we once again explain that genetic modification and traditional breeding are completely different matters. Taking Article 3 of the Act Governing Food Safety and Sanitation, newly amended this year, as an example, the definition of genetically modified is: "refers to the use of genetic engineering or molecular biotechnology to transfer or clone genetic material into living cells or organisms, producing gene recombination so that exogenous gene characteristics are expressed or specific genes of the organism itself cannot be expressed. However, it does not include traditional breeding, cell and protoplast fusion of species of the same family, hybridization, mutation, in vitro fertilization, somatic cell variation, and chromosome doubling." Obviously, Professor Lin's argument departs from the definition in the law and is open to question.

Only by returning to the correct scientific definition and abandoning the misleading argument that treats "genetic modification as variety improvement or traditional breeding in a broad sense" can one take the proper attitude toward the risks of GM crops.

Explanation Two: There is no academic consensus on whether GM foods are safe

The article cites statements by institutions such as the World Health Organization and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences that "GM products approved for market by national regulatory agencies are safe food" as evidence that GM food is harmless, a claim that has also repeatedly appeared in other pro-GMO statements.

In response, we can also find contrary joint declarations by scientists, for example the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER), whose statement was signed by more than 93 scientists, scholars, physicians and experts worldwide, indicating that there is still no academic consensus on the safety of GM foods.

It can be seen that the claim that GM products have been proven safe is merely a selective statement.

Taking the United States as an example, the notorious Monsanto (MONSANTO) company is headquartered in Missouri. The company has continuously lobbied politically to loosen restrictions on GM crops, applied for GM seed patents with the intent of controlling the world's food sovereignty, spent large amounts of money using the media to promote the wonderful vision of GM crops, and even attempted to use lawsuits to obstruct citizen referendums in several U.S. states "requiring labeling of GM foods."

One may ask, in the face of the ugly behavior of these multinational corporations, how can people truly believe the claim that "GM products approved for market by national regulatory agencies are safe food"? And scientists who embrace GM crops have so far taken an evasive attitude toward the wrongdoing of companies such as Monsanto. Why has no one, upholding the scientist's spirit of seeking truth from facts, bravely stood up and spoken clearly?

Explanation Three: The health effects of GM crops are not without evidence

"Humans have eaten GM crops for 20 years now, and there is no evidence showing that GM crops are harmful to health." This argument raised by Professor Lin is even more worthy of discussion.

Taking the controversy surrounding French scientist Gilles-Eric Seralini as an example, the effects of eating GM crops and the accompanying herbicides only became concretely apparent in rats after half their life cycle, and compared with human lifespan, the impact on human health might only appear after a long time (30-40 years). Moreover, Monsanto so far is unwilling to clearly disclose GM experimental data, which gives rise to much room for imagination. Professors such as Lin, who are full of confidence in GM crops, should really publicly demand and call on Monsanto to make its years of research and experimental data transparent, so that scientists and the public worldwide concerned about the GMO issue can examine it, thereby demonstrating credibility.

In addition, on the website GMO FREE USA, more than 1,800 papers on the effects of GM crops and foods on the environment, society and human health at various levels have so far been collected. Professor Lin's claim that "there is no evidence showing that GM crops are harmful to health" is rather too arbitrary.

Explanation Four: Large-scale planting of GM crops has not reduced herbicide use

According to data released by Food & Water Watch in 2013, since the United States began planting GM crops in 1996, the use of the herbicide Roundup has continued to rise. The original myth that GM crops could reduce herbicides has completely failed to deliver, and instead has allowed companies such as Monsanto, which hold patents on both GM seeds and the Roundup herbicide, to fill their pockets by selling seeds, accompanying herbicides and chemical fertilizers.

Not only that, the consequences of spraying large amounts of Roundup have already caused nature to strike back, producing herbicide-resistant superweeds. Roundup residues have been detected in soil, rivers, human breast milk and urine, let alone the health effects on farmers growing GM crops.

Explanation Five: The GMO crop debate should incorporate the concepts of food sovereignty and social justice

In the article, Professor Lin mentions that GM cotton increased value by 11.6%, but does not discuss the wave of suicides among Indian farmers caused by switching to GM crops. Anyone with some knowledge of the history of GM crops knows that it cannot be denied that since 2005, the official conservative estimate of Indian farmers choosing suicide because of failed GM cotton cultivation and inability to repay debts has reached as many as 10,000 per year. Faced with the social problems of family ruin caused by GM crops over the years, can scientists really hide in a falsely claimed academic ivory tower and ignore them?

It is a well-known fact that global GM crop seeds are controlled by a few multinational agricultural corporations such as Monsanto, Syngenta, DuPont and Dow Chemical, showing that the GMO controversy involves not only human health risks and ecological environment issues, but also food sovereignty and social justice from the individual to the national level, which cannot be avoided..

As Professor Lin says, Taiwan, China's planting area is limited, and farmers have excellent breeding technology. We should uphold the concept of combining social justice and environmental protection, and strive to seek more land-friendly and sustainable planting methods, rather than seeking externally the GM crops whose controversies continue and whose risks are hard to judge.

Do not let the single, beautiful illusion on the surface of genetic modification technology become the endless sorrow of Taiwan, China's land and people.