Genetically Modified Organisms or Transgenic Organisms are the terms used to define a plant or an animal which is apparently normal, but to which, through genetic engineering tehniques, certain genes were transferred from: plants, animals, bacteria, viruses or even human genes, to give them new properties.

Genes are units that carry the heredity aspects of living organisms. They are formed by the DNA (or RNA, for some viruses) and provide the basis for development and cell function, organs and individuals, also being responsible for many forms of innate behavior. During reproduction, the genetic material is transmitted from the parents to the children.

Genetic engineering is a new radical and violent technology, which destroys the inter-specific barriers in a way that naturally could not happen. Practically, it implies the transfer of a gene from a species to another. For example, a gene from the Platichthys flesus (an arctic fish), which has anti-freezing properties was inserted into a variety of strawberry to ensure its protection from freezing.

NO. It is impossible to direct the insertion of the new gene. This technology can lead to unexpected effects. Genes do not work isolated, they have complex relations which are not yet fully understood by scientists. Any change in the DNA will affect the new organism on a long term, in ways which scientists cannot foresee.

The main characteristics followed by the artificial transformation are resistance to certain diseases and pests, tolerance to herbicides and the insertion of some marketing properties. Proponents also want plant cultivation where environmental conditions do not permit it, like high temperatures, frost, drought, soil salinity and acidity. The latter, the most promoted, is an attempt  to save the third world countries from starvation.
Nevertheless, until now, the GMO producing companies did not sell any product with these characteristics.

The first genetically modified plant was introduced into the environment very recently, in 1995, in the USA. There are 3 main types cultivated in the world:

- Insecticide crops: plants which work like an insecticide, killing insects which consume them;
- Nonselective herbicide resistent crops. The herbicide destroys all the flora of the agricultural field, excepting the GMO plants;
- Crops which combine both of these properties.

Other genetically modified crops include plants resistant to certain diseases, or plants developing nutritive properties.

YES. Recent studies demonstrate that genetically modified products affect the health of mammals.

The MON863 genetically modified corn produced by Monsanto, approved for human consumption on the European market, caused serious modifications in the kidneys and liver of some guinea pigs used during a scientific study. The study was accomplished by the french scientist Gilles Eric Serralini, and was it was published in March 2007.

Another variety of genetically modified corn produced by Monsanto, named NK603, already approved for consumption in the European Union was analyzed by the french CRIIGEN Scientific Institute. The results of the study showed that the guinea pigs fed with this corn suffered kidney, liver, brain and heart modifications and presented significant weight differences.

The genetically modified soy produced by Monsanto (GTS 40-3-2) was analyzed in a recent Russian study, coordinated by Maria Kanovalova and Professor V. Blinovm. The results of the study made on some guinea pigs show severe changes at an internal (kidney, liver, testicular) and cellular level, and weight losses. Also, genetically modified soy was diagnosed as the cause of infant mortality, an increase in aggressiveness and the loss of the maternal instinct of the guinea pigs. This type of soy was authorized for cultivation in Romania too, until 2007.

YES. Once released into the environment as either test crops, or commercial ones, genetically modified plants cannot be controlled because they interact freely with the whole ecosystem. The surrounding conventional or organic crops can be depurified through pollination, due to the wind and insects.

Also, the whole biodiversity suffers from the genetically modified crops resistent to insects and erbicides. Many insects which naturally feed with the plant pests suffer and even die if they consume the pests from the genetically modified plants. This is the case of the ladybugs which eat aphids. Resistant weeds have already appeared to non-selective herbicides which are used to treat genetically modified plants. GMOs can reproduce and cross with organisms form the natural environment, thus resulting new organisms, in an uncontrolled and unpredictable way.

When they were launched in the crops, not much was known about the impact of GMO over the environment and human health. All these conclusions were obtained later.

How do we know that after a few years other new negative effects of GMO won’t be discovered, when all the biosphere will be contaminated and there is nothing left to do?

Genetically modified crops were created to bring profit for the producing companies, which have extremly aggressive policies.

One of the consequences of using GMO seeds is losing the right to use the seeds in the following crop seasons, because of the patents over these varieties. Every year, the farmer will have to buy the seeds from the producing company. If the farmer doesn’t buy the seeds for the crop, he might pay substantial fines and compensations to the company, because of the the intellectual property legislation.

Also disturbing is the fact that the legislation which theoretically proposes to protect the farmers from GMO contamination, is absolutly inapplicable.
In the USA and Canada, thousands of farmers paid huge fines to Monsanto when their crops were contaminated against their will.

The example of the Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser is very well known, who lost after numerous trials, the case against the Monsanto company. Percys’ conventional soy crops were contaminated with his neighbour's genetically modified soy. This farmer never wanted to grow genetically modified plants. Now he has to pay fines worth tens of thousands of dollars to the Monsanto company, because of the infringement of copyright on seeds.

In India, over 1000 farmers committed suicide because of the failure of the genetically modified Bt cotton from Monsanto. “Bt” stands for Bacillus thuringiensis, a bacteria, whose gene was injected into the cotton seeds to give them resistance against the common Indian pests. Monsanto sold the GM cotton seed to the farmers, promising that they would have higher productions.
The GM cotton proved to be vulnerable to pests, the productions were a failure and the farmers who put their hopes in it and made huge loans to grow this Monsanto cotton could not handle the pressure of this disastrous situation.

Because of the genetic uniformity of GM crops it is likely for a single new pest to destroy an entire culture. For rural areas where agro-tourism is developed, the presence of genetically modified crops on small farms is a major disadvantage to the image of that area, due to concerns of people around the world who are alarmed by the risks of GMOs on health and the environment and who want that the foods they eat to be as safe as possible and environmentally friendly.

This technology can lead to a monopoly with devastating effects over farmer and consumer rights, who will become addicted to the products of some GMO-producing companies.

There isn’t any consensus among scientists on the safety or risks associated with genetic engineering applied in agriculture. We present you the declarations of some distinguished scientists who have expressed their profound concern regarding this technology.

Dr. Suzanne Wuerthele, Environment Protection Agency (EPA), USA, toxicologist: “Despite the concerns of some respected scientists and despite the facts that demonstrate the contrary of the benefits, this technology is promoted by the agencies which should protect the environment and human health. My conclusion is that we confront the most powerful technology known by world which is advancing with almost no analysis over its consequences.”

Professor Arpad Pusztai, a known and globally appreciated scientist on nutritional problems, doctor in biochemistry, member of the Royal Society of Edinburgh: “If it depended on me, I certainly would not eat genetically modified food. We introduce new elements in food, which were never consumed by mankind. The effects over the immune system are not easily foreseen and I dare to contradict with anybody who says that the effects are predictable.”

Dr. Andrew Chesson, vice president of the animal nutrition scientific committee of the European Commission: “Potentially disastrous effects can occur from undetected harmful substances in genetically modified food.”

Dr. Harash Narang, microbiologist and associate researcher at the Leeds University, the first scientist who drew the attention over a possible link between BSE (Bovine spongiform encephalopathy) and CJD (Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease): “If we simply consider the principle of genetic modification we can conclude that it is an environmental disaster. There aren’t any risk quantification methods…the solution is prohibiting the genetic modification of food.”

Dr. Mae Wan-Ho, geneticist at Open University, UK, Department of Biology: “Genetic engineering exceeds the limits of conventional cultivation by using genetic parasite element constructions, including viruses as vectors, which transfer and introduce the foreign genes in the cells.

Dr. George Wald, Nobel Prize winner, biology professor at Harvard University said: “Until now, living organisms evolved very slowly, new lifeforms having sufficient time to develop. Now, a whole protein is transported in completely new genetic associations…going this direction may not be unwise, but it’s dangerous. It can generate new animal and plant diseases, new sources of cancer, new epidemics.”

Profesor Gordon McVie, leader of the Cancer Research Campaign: “We do not know what kind of genetic abnormalities may occur in the genome (DNA). Frankly, I am more concerned for the people than for the environment. One of the problems is the need of long term experiments precisely because we are talking about a phenomenon with a long-term impact.”

Professor Richard Lewontin, geneticist, Harvard University, “We understand so little about the way the organism develops its DNA, that I would be surprised if during the development of this new technology we won’t have one shock after the other.”

Dr. Eirk Millstone, Sussex University, “ The fundamental problem in the way genetically modified food was approved is that it hasn’t been tested adequately. I can only everything that happened in this field characterize as a thinking in vain.”

“Through genetic engeneering, familiar food could become dangerous or even toxic for the methabolism.” Declaration from 21 researchers, including Professor Brian Goodwin, Proffesor Jacqueline McGlade, Professor Peter Saunders and Professor Richard Lacey.

Professor Richard Lacey, microbiologist and Food Security professor at the Leeds University – one of the scientist who predicted the disaster caused by BSE – mad cow desease, took a firm position against the introduction of genetically modified crops destined for human consumption: “We must not indulge in the idea that we can predict the results”.

Professor James (main creator of the Food Standard Agency from UK) made comments on genetically modified food: “The perception that everything is opened and secure is completely naive. I don’t think we fully understand the dimension of the problem in which we entered.” He also added that, “We need to develop the protection methods in a more efficient and corresponding way by alerting the companies and the governmental agencies about the unexpected consequences caused by random introduction of foreign genes in plants”. Professor James also noticed the fact that the current legal system can be challenged by the mere fact that they take all sorts of decisions with so few arguments and evidence”.

Dr. Gerald B. Guest, Manager of the FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM), “…animal feed derived from genetically modified plants presents unique alimentary and animal problems… The residues of plant constituents or the toxins found in milk or meat products can put food safety problems for people.”

Dr. Vyvyan Howard, an expert in infant toxic-pathology at the Liverpool University Hospital, “The exchange of genes between organisms can produce toxic effects and allergies that are very likely to affect children”.

Professor Dennis Parke from the Biology University of Surrey, ex consultancy coordinator on food security problems at the Unilever Corporation and British consultant at rhe FDA from the United States on biotechnology safety problems says: “ In 1983, hundreds of spanish people died because they consumed counterfeit rapeseed oil. This oil was not toxic for guinea pigs.” Dr. Parke warns that the current testing procedures of the genetically modified food, including the tests over rodents do not prove their safe consumption. He suggested a moratorium against releasing genetically modified food on the market.

Dr. Peter Wills, biologist at the Auckland University declares: “Through the gene transfers which exceed the forever existing species barriers like man and sheep, we risk to brake the natural barriers despite some unexpected biological processes. For example, this technology can bring to life some neurological infectious diseases”.

Dr. Michael Antoniou, an expert in Molecular Pathology at Guy Hospital confesses, “this generation of genetically modified plants and animals implicates the random insertion of some artificial genetic material from other unrelated species into the DNA of the host organism. This procedure generates ruptures in the genetic footprint of the organism with completely unpredictable consequences. The unexpected generation of toxic substances was observed at genetically modified bacteria, plats and animals; the problem remains dormant until a major disaster apears. More than that, genetically modified food or the agents used for animal processing could produce a sudden effect, or it could take years until their toxicity is revealed.” Dr Antoniou recently drew alarm signals to the members of Parliament, “We must not lose ourselves in a false impression of food security: we must not think that by regulating a thing which is so profound, unpredictable and without control, it automatically becomes safe!”

Dr. David Schubert, professor at the Salk Institute declared, “I think that not enough attention is directed towards two important issues: the first is that, the introduction of the same gene in two different cells can produce two types of very different proteins, te second is that the introduction of any gene from different or related species, usually produces significant changes in the entire expression way of the gene and therefor in the phenotype of the host cell. There is no way to predict the result.”

Dr. David Williams, assistant professor at the University of California, San Diego, a researcher who uses genetic engineering in his activity, declare, “The problem with approach of genetic engineering is not genetic engeneering in whole – I personally work in this field. It’s the fact that these products are thrown in the food chain. This is simply a detestable negligence.”

According to the official Eurobarometer polls from recent years, over 70% of the EU consumers do not wish to consume genetically modified food products. Also, over 95% of the questioned want to have the right to choose between a genetically modified and conventional product.

The Europeans no longer have total faith in the official declarations of the experts and in the research of GMO defenders after the Mad Cow Disease from England and “dioxin chicken” from Belgium. They fear more and more of artificial food and prefer organic, natural products.

Romanian consumers are not even in the position to choose between a genetically modified and conventional product. There aren’t any GMO labeled products on the Romanian market.

Genetic engineering marketing inspires man kind to dream about a perfect health, long life and miraculous foods. The reality is that sometimes these commercials haven’t any evidence or they hide long term problems which are still unrevealed.

Genetic engineering is necessary to feed the world
World hunger is a phenomenon caused by the inefficient global food distribution system and poverty, leading to the inability to buy food. In the EU, for example, agricultural production is restricted, which means that more can be produced, but the EU want’s to avoid overproduction.

Genetic engineering helps developing countries
Biotechnology companies patent their seed to protect their investment. Farmers which use these seeds, sign a contract which forbids them to keep the seed for reseeding it in the next year, and to exchange them between farmers. The existence of small scale family farms depends by the traditional habit of keeping the seeds from one year to another. GM seeds are created for big industrial farms, not for small farmers in developing countries.

Genetic engineering will reduce herbicide use
Genetic engineering has created herbicide resistant crops. For example, there are crops resistant to RoundUp (the most common herbicide used for GM plants). On one hand this phenomenon forces the farmer to use more herbicide. On the other hand, it will lead to the emerging of new herbicide resistant weed distended to GM plants.

Genetic engineering will reduce pesticide use
This affirmation is based on making GM crops producing their own pesticide. These plants produce toxic substances - pesticides, all year long, in each cell. These cultures (for example: the Bt potato – genetically modified with the Bacillus thuringiensis gene) are classified by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency, USA) as pesticides. The result of pesticide producing plant seeding is an increase in pesticide use.

Genetic engineering is environmental-friendly
The large quantities of herbicides and pesticides are already arguments against this statement. GM pollen can be transported by the wind many kilometers, thus threatening the future of organic, conventional and traditional crops. Herbicide tolerant genes could be transferred from GM crops to related wild varieties. Also, vast areas cultivated with GM crops will have an influence over the evolution of pests and wildlife.

Genetically modified food is like natural food.
The biotechnology industry uses the “substantial equivalent” term when they make a comparison between natural and GM organisms to show that apparently, GMOs are not different. There aren’t any natural mechanisms which transfer genes from an insects’ DNA in a potato or a gene from a fish into a strawberry. GM food is created to be different. If they aren't different, why do they put a patent on them?

Genetic engineering is safe
Safety is a result of accumulated experience. In the case of GM food, not enough time has passed to reach this conclusion, and the public debates are just starting. Recently, Monsanto was forbid to use the affirmation: “there weren’t reported any negative reactions.”

To underline the ignorance with which this problem is treated we mention:

- There aren’t any long term real risk assessment studies on the environment and health;
- There is no strategy for a major environmental disaster;
- There isn’t any clear information about the legal responsibilities in case of negative consequences.

- Do not use these kind of seeds because they pose risks on the environment, biodiversity, human and animal health and small scale farm production;

- Display a clear position in favor of a safe and sustainable agriculture;

- Always inform yourself from many sources, tell to your friends about the disadvantages of GMOs and encourage them to take a position on this problem;

- Ask the authorities to label genetically modified foods to differentiate them from conventional ones;

- Check frequently the www.infomg.ro site to take part in future activities and petitions;

- Declare your area, commune, city “GMO Free”;

- Promote this idea in the neighboring communities and offer them your help in implementing this decision;

- Download the sticker or the banner from the site and put them in a visible place to promote the campaign against GMOs;

- Urge you local, regional authorities to sign a petition towards the central Romanian authorities (The Ministry for Environment, Ministry of Agriculture etc.) and the European Commission, in which they declare their position regarding GMO.

We welcome any ideas, suggestions and initiatives!