International organization on biotechnology in agriculture(ISAAA) has published an annual report on the prevalence of GMOs in the world.
Over the past 2011, the acreage occupied by GM crops increased by 8% or 12 million hectares and reached 160 million hectares. This means that today about 12% of all the world's arable land is occupied by GM crops. Transgenic crops are the most aggressively spreading technology in the history of modern agriculture.
As ISAAA founder Clive James said, over 16 years of development of biotechnology in the agricultural sector, the world's land area occupied by GM crops has increased from 1.7 million hectares in 1996 to 160 million hectares last year.
Currently, biotechnologies are represented in 29 countries, including 19 developing countries and 10 industrialized ones.
The areas under GM crops grew at the highest rates in developing countries; last year they increased by 11% - to 8.2 million hectares, while in developed countries the growth rate of the amount of land was two times lower and amounted to 5%, increasing to 3.8 million hectares.
Among developing countries, the leaders in the introduction of biotechnology in agriculture are Brazil, Argentina, China, India and South America.
However, the ISAAA report notes that the United States remains a leader in the introduction of GM crops into agriculture. 69 million hectares of land are devoted to GMOs in the United States. Brazil is now in second place, with 30.3 million hectares of land occupied by GM crops.
Moreover, in Brazil over the past year the amount of arable land on which GMOs are grown increased by 4.5 million hectares or 20%. It should be noted that the dynamics of the spread of GMOs in the world slowed down a bit last year.
Thus, in 2010, 148 million hectares were allocated for GMO crops - this is 10% more than in 2009. Apart from South America, biotechnologies are being adopted at the fastest pace in India, where more than 10 million hectares are already allocated for GMOs, in China there are still about 4 million hectares and in Pakistan 3 million hectares.
It is also noted that biotechnology in developing countries is most often used by poor farmers living in developed countries. Many developed countries limit the spread of transgenic crops.
In Europe and Ukraine, only a few GM varieties of industrial corn and soybeans are allowed to be grown. Since 2010, the total area of biotech crops in the European Union began to fall sharply, and the EU intends to strictly regulate such crops in the future.
At the political level, understanding of the importance of biodiversity matured in 1992, when in Rio de Janeiro most countries of the world signed the Convention on Biological Diversity, of which the only international document to regulate the GMO market in the world - the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.
Supporters of the application genetic engineering In agriculture, we are confident that by eating transgenic food, a person is no more at risk than by eating conventional foods. Their main arguments are:
· GMOs make it possible to produce more food products that are cheaper and tastier than traditional crops produce;
Plants can be modified to contain more nutrients and vitamins (for example, by incorporating vitamin A into rice, it can then be grown in regions where people suffer from a lack of this vitamin in the body);
Genetically modified plants can be adapted to extreme conditions(drought, cold, etc.);
· the use of genetically modified crops that are resistant to pests will make it possible to less intensively treat fields with chemicals;
· food products containing genetically modified ingredients can become beneficial to health if vaccines against various diseases are embedded in them (for example, lettuce has already been obtained, which produces a vaccine against hepatitis B).
An alternative to biotechnological farming, according to supporters of GM products, could be organic (biological, biodynamic), but it has not become widespread.
Biotechnology is increasingly being used in agriculture. Scientists at the University of Edinburgh (UK) invented in 2000 a genetically modified potato whose leaves emit a slight glow when there is a lack of water. What makes potatoes glow is the gene from the jellyfish Aequorea Victoria, which is built into the DNA of the plant. Glowing potatoes are not intended to be eaten. It can be planted along the edges of fields with other crops as a “sentry” telling the farmer when watering is needed.
In 2003, the Federal Institute of Technology (Switzerland) created “golden rice” with a high content of provitamin A. To do this, it was necessary to integrate special bacterial genes and narcissus genes into it. But its use is risky for health, since the safety of GM products for people and the environment has not yet been proven. The population of most countries of the world does not accept products made using genetic engineering.
USA AND GMOs. Introduction
The United States was the first to use genetic engineering to impart desired properties to plants. The headquarters of the largest biotech giant, Monsanto, is located in the United States. The United States is actively lobbying for the cultivation and distribution of GMOs throughout the world. The main crops are soybeans, corn, canola and cotton, and are used for both food production and livestock feed.
According to various estimates, up to 80% of the food consumed by Americans contains transgenes. Despite the fact that, according to an ABC News poll, 92% of Americans support the introduction of labeling of GM products, the United States continues to insist that such products are no different from conventional ones. However public opinion does not share the optimism of the authorities: more than 80% of respondents consider GM products unsafe.
The state most resistant to GMOs is California. Four California counties - Mendocino, Trinity, Santa Cruz and Marin - have decided to ban GM crops. More than ten other counties have attempted to ban GM crops. Other states, Maine and Vermont, are taking similar initiatives. More than 80 cities in Vermont have called for a moratorium on the cultivation of GM crops. These are: Underhill, Andover, Barnet, Bakersfield, Bennington, Burlington, Brattleboro, Brownsville, Bristol, Brooklyn, Wethersfield, Weybridge, Waitsfield, Vershire, Westminster, Weston, Westfield, Westford, Woodbury, Hydepark, Gainesburg, Guilford, Glover, Goshen, Greensboro, Dummerston, Jamaica, Johnson, Cabot, Kalais, Lincoln, Londonberry, Landgroove, Marlborough, Marshfield, Middlebury, Middlesex, Montgomery, Moncton, Montpelier, Morristown, Motown, Norwich, Newark, Newfane, Peru, Plainfield, Plimoth, Putney, Randolph, Royalton, Rockingham, Rochester, Rutland, Salisbury, Springfield, Starksboro, Stafford, Stannard, Thetford, Tunbridge, Wheelock, Wyndham, Walden, Walcott, Warren, Waterville, Fayston, Fletcher, Halifax, Hardwick, Hartland, Hartford, Chelsea, Chester, Charlotte, Sharon, Shaftesbury, Shoreham, Shrewsbury, Eden.
In Maine, the cities of Brooklyn and Montville have declared themselves GMO-free.
In a country that considers itself a stronghold of democracy, authorities are attempting to prohibit administrative units from deciding for themselves whether or not to grow GM crops. Law prohibiting local authorities states to independently introduce regulations regulating the distribution and use of GM crops, which Monsanto lobbied for, was almost adopted in California.
The USA is developing more and more new GMOs, including pharmaceutical plants, plants for ethanol production, etc. GM products are supplied as humanitarian aid to African countries and are actively tested in South America and are aggressively imposed on various countries of the world.
USA and GMOs
As we have already said, the majority of Americans do not want to consume genetically modified foods and consider them dangerous. Because the US does not require manufacturers to list genetically modified ( GM or GMO) ingredients on product labels, the public is largely unaware that they are purchasing GM foods. Such ingredients are now found in 80 percent of all foods sold in grocery stores. While the population unwittingly consumes more and more all kinds of products with GMO, evidence continues to grow about their danger to the human body.
European Union (EU), Japan, China, Korea, Australia, and New Zealand require labeling of products that contain at least one type of GMO. Despite this, such laws do not exist in America, CBS shows that most Americans want to see such labeling. A CBS poll found that 53 percent of Americans would not buy food if they knew it contained adulterants. DNA.
Experts and consumers are becoming more and more concerned about the products GMO, as evidence of their danger to the human body increases. Research conducted on rats, during which some were fed with ordinary grains, and others containing GMO, covered in the International Journal of Biological Sciences. Research results showed a clear difference between the two groups. In rats fed food with GMO, signs of liver enlargement, problems with the kidneys, heart and adrenal glands, and irritability were found.
A global leader who has given impetus to product development GMO- Monsanto company. Research, which used the same data, was conducted by Monsanto itself, and was aimed only at gaining benefit and approval GMO.. These research carried out by the Committee of Research and Information on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN) and the universities of Cannes and Rouen in France. The results of the research, completed in December 2009, appeared in the International Journal of Biological Sciences (IJBS).
99 percent of grain crops GMO contribute to insecticide - mortality of bee colonies and mass death of butterflies. If GMO kill our pollinators, they have a more detrimental effect on environment than the threat posed by humans and other mammals. In addition to possible deaths and damage to ecosystems, opponents GMO they are afraid that the latter may cause the emergence of antibiotic-resistant diseases due to viruses and bacteria resulting from the introduction GMO into products. They also fear that such foods may lead to chronic diseases such as fibromyalgia (symmetrical chronic pain throughout the body, musculoskeletal pain; depression, bad dream) and cause food allergies.
The problem of GMOs in Russia
Russia has followed the path of a market economy, in which business plays the main role. Unfortunately, unscrupulous entrepreneurs often push low-quality products to make a profit. This is especially dangerous when products based on the use of poorly studied new technologies are being pushed.
Despite the fact that the impact of genetically modified products on human health has not yet been fully studied, their use in Russia is not officially prohibited. Moreover, in our country there is not even a legislative framework for regulating and using sales.
The sanitary doctor of Russia, Mr. Onishchenko, issued a decree introducing new sanitary rules, according to which manufacturers are required to indicate that products are prepared using GMI (genetically modified sources). Those. Manufacturers are required to label products that contain more than 5% GMI. Despite the requirements of the Ministry of Health and the resolution of the chief physician, markings regarding the presence of GMI are extremely rarely applied to finished products. And if there is marking, it is very small and unclear to the average buyer.
There are several reasons why the resolution is still not operational tactically.
Poor information from manufacturers (who are responsible for product labeling). Many of them do not know what GM components are. As a result, most of them become victims of unscrupulous importers of raw materials who provide certificates that do not correspond to reality. Also in Russia there is no clear system for monitoring compliance with labeling requirements, and punitive measures have not been established for violators. As for the labeling itself, the existing standards are incomplete. For example: not everyone understands how the percentage of modified components at which a product must be labeled is determined. In Russia, the critical threshold for the presence of GMOs in a product is 5%, while in the European Union it is 0.9%. Note that these percentages in Europe are calculated by ingredient, i.e. if in 100 gr. sausage contains 30 grams. soybeans, then GMO here can be no more than 0.3 grams.
In Russia, 100 grams may be allowed. sausages up to 5 gr. GM soybeans. And one more nuance. Neither the level of usefulness nor the level of harmfulness of these products has yet been proven. This is due to the fact that scientists have not yet decided how and in what area this research should be carried out. Of course, now there is nowhere to go, we cannot get away from GMOs, since this is promising - the future belongs to it. Another thing is that GMOs have become widespread before all the necessary research has been completed.
As a result, Achilles' heel of all GMOs, the problem is that they cannot be controlled.
GMOs can appear in any product - candy, fruit, baby food and even bread. They help products last longer or increase weight. Scientists debate whether GMOs are dangerous or not, but most agree that transgenes undermine health. In the UK, for example, the sale of potato chips was banned - scientists believe that they lead to cancer. In America they are stopping the production of modified rice, it is making people fat. In Moscow, some stores refused to offer for sale goods without a GMO label, and products that do not contain such additives are distinguished by a special sign. Food suppliers fear that the state will tighten the procedure for the sale of goods containing GMOs. However, the imperfection of the legislative system still allows sellers to ignore the requirements of the law. But the law may be tightened, which will inevitably lead to higher prices.
According to random testing, from 30 to 40% of products sold in Moscow contain GM components. Six Moscow meat processing plants produce sausages that contain transgenic products, mainly from soy additives. At the same time, enterprises do not inform buyers about the content of GM components. According to the TV show “City” dated February 22, 2006 (TVC channel), the only Moscow plant that has abandoned soy additives is the Velcom enterprise. Meat products from this plant can be stored in the refrigerator for no more than 7 days.
Many scientists see genetic engineering as a means to solve the global food problem, especially in developing countries. With the help of new biotechnologies it is also possible to obtain cheap medicines. With increasing genetic diversity, it is possible that the resistance of new species to various pests, diseases, and changes in habitat and climate will also increase. In many countries, special so-called “plant banks” are created, where they try to preserve every blade of grass and seed - it is possible that the genetic fund will play an even greater role in solving the food problem in the future.
In Russia, not a single transgenic plant has yet received permission for commercial cultivation. However, some foods from genetically modified sources are labeled Russian market officially. These are mainly imported soy protein concentrates and isolates, soy flour, genetically modified soybeans, dietary fiber from soybeans, a dry nutritional drink from the same beans, soybean cereal, a special fortified drink, a milk replacer (intended for athletes), as well as two types of genetically modified potatoes. A meeting of the Interdepartmental Commission on Problems of Genetic Engineering Activities (IMCGID), held in 2005 at the Ministry of Industry and Science of the Russian Federation, supported the use of genetically modified products. This decision allowed the Bioengineering Center to legalize on the Russian market some genetically modified products that are prohibited in many countries around the world.
The International Social-Ecological Union, with the participation of Hungarian journalists, conducted a special study of genetically modified products on the Russian market.
Until recently, there was no state control over activities in the field of genetic engineering in Russia, and there were no special tests for GMOs. In 2004, Russia finally introduced state standards(GOST) for transgenic products, technologies have emerged that make it possible to know exactly whether the products (including the raw materials for their production) contain GMOs. The first laboratory appeared in Moscow at the Institute of Plant Physiology of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Now it will be more difficult for manufacturers to justify the absence of a “contains GMO” label on their products by the fact that they do not have the opportunity to carry out analytical studies. Testing for GMOs will become mandatory for everyone who uses GM crops permitted in our country - potatoes, sugar beets, soybeans and corn.
The Decree of the Sanitary and Epidemiological Supervision Service introduces a new percentage barrier for GMO content - 0.9%. If a product contains fewer GMOs, it can be sold without labeling. This is a European standard, the introduction of which in Russia is certainly a positive thing.
According to the coordinator of the program “For Eco-Safety” of the International Social-Ecological Union, Victoria Kolosnikova, the emergence of a new GOST and a new resolution on labeling is the result of public pressure, including the consumer, who in Russia is becoming more and more demanding, but it is necessary to further tighten the requirements for food manufacturers so that only products that do not contain GMOs are sold without labeling. First of all, this applies to baby food products.
According to analytical reviews of food markets, the number of Russians who are attentive to their diet is steadily growing. The International Social and Ecological Union conducted its own surveys of customers in large stores in the capital. On average, 80% of respondents said they would not buy a product if it contained GM ingredients.
But even the introduction of a new GOST does not solve the problem. Thus, in the UK, after the introduction of appropriate standards for GM products, it turned out that up to 60% of soybeans and soybean products sold were genetically modified. This became one of the serious reasons for launching a wide public campaign in the country. According to unofficial data, about 30% of food products sold in Moscow contain transgenes. These are mainly products with foreign soy fillers. The flow of soybean imports continues to grow. According to customs statistics, imports of soy protein isolate from the USA for Last year increased by one and a half times, and compared with its imports in 2000 - almost 150 times.
And yet, mandatory information regarding the quality of genetically modified products does not reach the consumer. Last year, the quality of some meat products going on sale was checked. In Moscow, the results of inspections of the capital's meat processing products market for the presence of GMOs were made public. The study was carried out by order of the All-Russian Association of Genetic Safety (OAGB) in the accredited laboratory MAK-O LLC together with the International Social-Ecological Union.
Laboratory experts tested the products of eight largest producers of meat and sausages: meat processing plants "Ostankinsky", "Mikoyanovsky", "Tsaritsyno", "CampoMos", "Velkom", "Cherkizovsky", "Klinsky", as well as Dymovsky sausage production. In samples of products from four manufacturers, the examination showed the presence of GMOs: “Ostankinsky”, “Mikoyanovsky”, “Tsaritsyno”, “CampoMos”, which amounted to 33% of the total volume of products tested.
Products containing GMOs: liver pate (Ostankino meat processing plant), “Doctor” sausages (Mikoyanovsky meat processing plant), boiled “Doctorskaya” sausage, original chilled sausage (Tsaritsyno meat processing plant), “Nocturne” sausages with Parmesan cheese (CampoMos meat processing plant) and semi-smoked sausages “Okhotnichye” from the same plant (sold in the Ramstore and Seventh Continent retail chains).
“We are discouraged by the fact that GMOs were found in the products of the Ostankino plant, which bear the sign “genetically safe product,” implying the absence of GM components. This is a direct violation of consumer rights, and such manufacturers will very quickly lose their trust,” comments Victoria Kopeikina, coordinator of the “For Biosafety” program of the International Social-Ecological Union.
According to the amendment to Federal Law RF “On the Protection of Consumer Rights”, which came into force in 2005, food products containing GMOs are subject to mandatory labeling, regardless of the percentage of GM components. However, the labeling standards were not met and are not being met.
For violation of standards related to the use of GMOs in food products (molecular genetic examination, state registration, labeling), only administrative liability is applied in the form of a fine on officials in the amount of 30-50 times the minimum wage, and legal entities 300-500 minimum wages with confiscation of items of the offense. But this, apparently, is clearly not enough. It is necessary to introduce criminal liability for such violation of norms, since the use of GMOs poses a direct threat to human health.
In December 2004, the International Symposium “Transgenic Plants and Biosafety” was held in Moscow. For the first time in 8 years of wide discussion in Russia around the problem of introducing transgenes, representatives of science and the public discussed biosafety issues together. The event was organized by the Institute of Plant Physiology of the Russian Academy of Sciences together with a number of scientific and public organizations Russia and the CIS.
The symposium was attended by representatives of 15 leading biological institutes of the Russian Academy of Sciences, a number of research organizations of the Russian Academy of Agricultural Sciences, the Russian Academy medical sciences and the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, Moscow state university and other universities in the country, universities and institutes in Norway, the Czech Republic, Ukraine, Moldova, Tajikistan, as well as 10 leading public environmental organizations in Russia and the CIS.
In his final speech, Vladimir Kuznetsov, director of the Institute of Physiology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, emphasized that the technology for producing transgenic organisms today is imperfect; we know little about the plant genome. In his opinion, long-term studies must be carried out to prove the biological safety of GM plants, and only after that can we talk about their use.
At the symposium, it was especially noted that the problem of biosafety and GMOs has long gone beyond the purely scientific. Transgenes are grown in many countries around the world, food products containing GMOs have become part of the daily diet of millions of people.
Most speakers stated the importance of providing government financial support to fundamental scientific work in the field of biosafety. Their task should be to justify the feasibility and safety of introducing transgenic plants; these studies should be controlled by society.
According to the conference participants, to solve the problem of GMOs it is necessary to take the following measures:
· carry out comprehensive fundamental and applied research(with appropriate government funding) to study the biosafety of GMO and GM food products. Such research must necessarily precede large-scale commercial use of GMOs;
· improve legislative framework in the field of regulating the flow of GMO and GM food products and harmonize national legislation, including Russia, with the legislation of the European Union. This - necessary condition to develop equal trade with countries Western Europe;
· Russia should join the Cartagena Protocol, which regulates interstate flows of GMOs on a global scale;
· create a state, independent from the manufacturer, effectively operating system for monitoring the presence of GMOs in plants and food products in the interests of environmental safety and the health of the nation;
· adopt an international pact on the non-proliferation of GMOs in territories not occupied by them, primarily in Russia, until their real and potential biological safety for humans and the environment is proven.
Beware of GMOs!!!
How to check whether seeds are GMO or regular hybrids?
There are two ways:
1. Find laboratories in your city that perform such analysis and order an analysis for them at your own expense. Perhaps there are such laboratories at the Sanitary and Epidemiological Station, perhaps somewhere else. I don’t have exact information on this yet, but I’ll look for it.
2. Plant seeds taken from the F1 harvest and check in practice - if the plant produces at least some fruits, then it is a regular hybrid, if there are no fruits at all, it is a 100% GMO hybrid. Since one of the characteristics of GMO seeds is complete sterilization of plants - i.e. the second generation will simply bloom exclusively with male flowers and produce no fruit at all. Therefore, those who bought hybrids and tried to get second-generation seeds from them, but were faced with such a phenomenon as the absence of fruits at all - this means that they used seeds from GMO plants.
Why do GMO seeds produce sterile plants in the second generation?
Plant sterility is one of the main characteristics of GMO seeds. This is due to the fact that producers of GMO seeds are aimed at obtaining constant profits from their sales. Farmers, knowing about the sterility of GMO hybrids, are forced to constantly purchase such seeds from their manufacturers, which provides a constant and fairly large income. It is precisely for the reason of profitability that GMO producers sterilize their seed products at the genetic level.
This property of plant sterility is manifested in the fact that the second generation taken from GMO plants will produce exclusively male flowers.
What is the danger of planting seeds of GMO hybrids and conventional varieties?
If plants tend to cross-pollinate among themselves, then such a danger exists. If a regular variety is cross-pollinated with a GMO hybrid, you can lose your variety completely, as it will not only lose the purity of its variety, but will also dramatically lose its yield, which will ultimately lead to its complete degeneration.
Corn, legumes, peppers, and cruciferous vegetables (cabbage, rapeseed, radishes, turnips) are especially easily pollinated. By the way, our fields are often sown with rapeseed using GMO seeds, which prevent its re-sprouting in the third year. Those. Having sowed rapeseed in the fields, in the second year the plants will be sterile and in the third year the field will be completely cleared of both the rapeseed itself and the weeds that the rapeseed suppresses during growth.
It is very easy to purchase corn from GMO producers. Corn is one of the first and one of the main crops that has undergone such genetic processing. GMO producers, knowing this, were able to make millions in profit from those farmers whose fields were pollinated by theirhybrids. Knowing the ease of cross-pollination of corn, GMO producers did a DNA analysis of these farmers' plants and, naturally, the tests turned out to be positive, as a result of which the GMO producers sued the farmers for very large sums of money, accusing them of deliberate cross-pollination.Hundreds of farmers not only went bankrupt because of this, but also committed suicide, unable to pay such huge sums. Other farmers went bankrupt, losing all their harvests as a result of accidental cross-pollination of varieties and GMO hybrids.
Why are GMO seeds attractive to farmers?
Despite all the events described above, GMO seeds are still attractive to those would-be farmers who care exclusively about monetary profit based on the “here and now” principle. After all, GMO seeds have properties and qualities that are not yet available to conventional varieties - this includes resistance to diseases, resistance to chemical treatments, these are high yields and beautiful fruits, their hardness and increased shelf life of products - after all, they are genetically programmed for this.
Such fruits, of course, are more attractive for sales and therefore farmers prefer to grow GMO plants rather than domestic varieties.
This choice is dictated by business conditions, which focus on fast and big profits, to the detriment of the moral and ethical side.
GMOs are most widespread in such socially poor countries as Argentina, Brazil, China, and India. Now Ukraine and Russia have joined them. Other countries, such as Holland, Italy, Spain, Turkey, Germany, also grow GMO plants, but not for the domestic market, but to import their products into these same socially poor countries.
The USA surpasses all countries in sowing and producing GMO products. After all, this is where the main areas and bases of MONSANTO are located, and that’s where it all began... It would seem that this is not a poor country, why does GMO flourish in it? You can look for the answer on the Internet, where some sources indicate that the Rothschilds and some representatives of the US government, interested in big profits, are behind this company.
If GMOs are so harmful, why is it becoming so widespread around the world?
GMO producers actively bribe and even physically eliminate their opponents, as evidenced by numerous publications in the Western press. They pursue their aggressive policy against dissenters and those who scientifically criticize their products.
But, despite such an aggressive promotion policy, many Western farmers categorically refuse to grow GMO products on their territory. They organize themselves into communities called GMO-Free Zones. And recently there are more and more such farmers in the West.
Here I provide a map of the distribution of GMO plants across the world. The figures indicate sown areas in millions of hectares. data on Russia, as always, is classified, which gives the impression that it is free from GMOs. :)
However, Russia is the country where the main products of GMO vegetables are exported, here is the map:
On the debate about the benefits and harms of consuming GMOs in the scientific and public world:
Disputes between the usefulness and harmfulness of GMO plants have been going on in the scientific and public world since the creation of the technology itself. However, this debate is about nothing. Evidence of the harmlessness of GMO products is provided by the producers of GMO seeds themselves. Naturally, they are extremely interested in pushing their products onto the market, so you cannot trust their evidence base - of course.
Scientists from different countries who conducted research on laboratory animals have identified numerous side effects from the consumption of GMO plants, in particular such an effect as sexual dysfunction in experimental mice, up to sterility in subsequent offspring (remember the sterility of GMO seeds), congenital deformities, reduced life expectancy in mice, starting from the second and third generation, etc. .d.
Here are the results of the experiments of individual scientific researchers:
However, such research was often abruptly stopped or the evidence was destroyed with special care due to the same aggressive policies of GMO producers, who have a trail of crimes against them. scientific organizations who disagree with the results of research by GMO producers themselves.
It is precisely because of the dangers of consuming GMO products that many countries actively resisted the introduction of these products into their markets.
Japan, whose standard of living is quite high and, being one of the most developed countries in the world, is an active opponent of the introduction of GMO plants into its market. The cultivation of GMO seeds is prohibited in the country, although the supply of imported products is not excluded. The average life expectancy of the Japanese is 80 years - this is one of the highest rates in the world (especially compared to our 62 years and 72 for the Americans). If GMO plants were truly harmless to people, then Japan would be one of the first to introduce them into its production and distribution, just as it introduces all scientific developments in electronics and technology. But, apparently, she, better than anyone, understands the unsafety of such products. However, if her government is bribed, then, most likely, she will give up her position before the onslaught of the MONSANTO corporation, which uses not so much marketing promotion as financial and political influence on individual members of the government.
Global statistics are available from summary reports published by the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA) - www.isaaa.org (English) and the Biotechnology Industry Organization - www.bio.org (English).
Thirteen countries grew genetically modified crops commercially in 2000, and of these, the United States produced the majority. In 2000, 68% of all GMO crops were grown by American farmers. In comparison, Argentina, Canada and China produced only 23%, 7% and 1% respectively. Other countries that grew commercial GMO crops in 2000 were: Australia, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Mexico, Romania, South Africa, Spain and Uruguay.
In 2007, 114.3 million hectares of the world were sown with GM crops.
Soybeans and corn are two of the most widely grown crops (82% of all GMO crops harvested in 2000). 74% of these GMO crops were modified to resist herbicides, 19% were modified to resist insect pests, and 7% were modified to resist both herbicides and insects. Globally, the area where GM crops are grown has increased 25-fold in just 5 years, from approximately 4.3 million hectares in 1996 to 109 million acres in 2000 (almost twice the size of the UK). About 99 million acres were devoted to GMO crops in the US and Argentina alone.
In the US, approximately 54% of all soybeans grown in 2000 were genetically modified, up from 42% in 1998 and only 7% in 1996. In 2000, genetically modified cotton varieties accounted for 61% of the total cotton harvest, up from 42% in 1998 and 15% in 1996. The share of GMO corn has obviously undergone no less sharp increase. The amount of genetically modified corn increased to 25% of all corn grown in 2000, about the same in 1998 (26%), up from 1.5% in 1996. As expected, the amount of pesticides and herbicides used on these GMO varieties has decreased and yields have generally increased (for details, see the UDSA publication on
It is allowed to sow genetically modified grains on the territory of the Russian Federation. At the same time, the first harvests of soybeans with GMOs are planned to be obtained in 2016-2017.
The adoption of this resolution immediately caused a mixed reaction, both among the public and in scientific circles. In addition to the debate about the safety of GMOs for the human body, the question of the potential need to grow GMO grains in our country has become acute.
Genetically modified crops were previously known in our country - they were grown in experimental plots. The main goal of this work was to identify the advantages that the use of GMO grains on the farm can provide.
The results of the experimental harvests have proven that genetically modified soybeans can provide a 2-3-fold increase in yield relative to their “unmodified” counterparts. However, almost immediately it became clear that in the conditions of the Russian climate, including the southern black soil regions, GMO plants are not able to reproduce. The experimenters had to constantly purchase new batches of seeds due to the fact that our country does not have its own seed production of this kind.
Another factor that was identified was the fact that for normal yields of GMO grains, large amounts of fertilizers with high chemical activity are required. In fact, their use led to the fact that after several years the soils in the experimental plots were depleted and could not restore their original properties for a long time (about 5 years).
At the same time, in Europe, the results of growing GMO grains turned out to be much more effective. Scientists managed to achieve a six-fold increase in productivity with their own seed production base. However, the world community has become aware of the risks that GMO grains may pose to the health of the nation. Disputes on this issue still do not subside, but the governments of most countries hastened to resolve this problem in a radical way - completely banning the use of food products with GMOs. However, genetically modified grains have managed to find their niche here - they are actively used for the production of bioethanol - an effective and environmentally friendly fuel that perfectly replaces traditional petroleum products.
Today, scientists around the world are divided into two camps - supporters and opponents of the use of GMOs. In the minds of most people, genetically modified foods look artificial. This statement is false due to the fact that genes are taken exclusively natural, from crops of the same breed. In fact, the creation of GMO grains is one of the types of selection that is performed at a more high-tech level.
Thus, studying the private, at first glance, normative act, you come across its inhuman basis. In history, only one analogy suggests itself - the secret plan of Nazi Germany, called “Lebensraum”, which literally means “Lebensraum”. It implied the destruction of the main part of the population of the east with the aim of subsequent Germanization.
The question is, who is behind the Lebensraum of the new era?
Whose criminal will wants to doom the Russian people to extinction?
And what inhuman forces are behind the adoption of such laws?
There are answers to these questions, but only a few know them, plotting the course of the ship called “Russia”. So where are the “steers” leading us?
especially for Anvictory
Every year the picture of fields sown with GMOs changes around the world. Some countries are expanding such acreage, while some, on the contrary, are completely abandoning modified crops.
Here is a list of countries that have banned genetically modified crops in one form or another:
In the United States: In California alone, Mendocino, Trinity and Marin counties have successfully banned GM crops. Voters in other California counties tried and failed to pass similar measures.
In Australia: Several Australian states have banned GM crops, but most have since lifted these bans. Only South Australia still has a ban on GM crops; Tasmania has extended the moratorium until 2029.
In Japan: The Japanese are strongly against genetically modified crops and no GM seeds are planted in the country. However, large quantities of canola are imported from Canada (one of the world's largest producers of GM canola) and wild GM canola is now growing around Japanese ports and roads to major food companies. Genetically modified canola, such as Monsanto's Roundup Ready canola, was found growing around 5 of the 6 ports tested for GM contamination.
In New Zealand: no genetically modified ones are grown in the country.
In Germany: There is also the sale of GMO corn.
In Norway (added in 2015): In 2014, she wrote a law on genetic technology, according to which the cultivation and sale of GMOs is prohibited in the country. The county of Oppland has been declared GMO-free.
In Ireland: All GM crops were banned from cultivation in 2009 and a voluntary labeling system was introduced for products containing genetically modified foods that are identified as such.
In Austria, Hungary, Greece, Bulgaria, Luxembourg And Italy: There are bans on the cultivation and sale of GMOs.
In France: Monsanto's GM was previously allowed in the country, but its cultivation has been banned by the government since 2008. There is widespread mistrust among the public towards GMOs.
In Madeira: The small, autonomous Portuguese island had asked for a nationwide ban on genetically modified crops and the EU allowed it last year.
In Switzerland: The country banned all GM organisms from its fields and farms following a public referendum in 2005, but the initial ban was passed for five years. In 2010, the ban was extended by Parliament until 2013 and again in 2012 until 2017. In March 2017, the ban on GMOs was extended until 2021.
In India: The government at the last moment imposed a ban on GM eggplants, which were planned to be planted in 2010. However, farmers were encouraged to plant Monsanto's genetically modified cotton, with devastating results. The English newspaper Daily Mail reported that approximately those who planted GM seeds committed suicide due to crop failure and huge debts.
In Thailand: the country simultaneously supports and opposes GM crops. The country imported GM papaya from Hawaii, where it was undergoing large-scale testing, but the country changed its plans when the seeds went wild and began contaminating nearby crops. As a result, some countries such as Japan have made attempts to restrict the import of papaya from Thailand, not wanting to import any genetically modified food products. Thailand is currently trying to cover both sides - producing organic food for some countries at a high price, although there is a noticeable trend towards growing GM crops. The country has also tried to declare some areas GMO-free zones in order to increase the level of trust among other countries in their food products.
Which countries are already using GM crops?
USA currently mainly grows GM lines of corn, canola and soybeans. GM papaya is now growing in Hawaii. Approvals have also been given for modified lines of alfalfa, squash, sugar beets and tomatoes, although not all are currently grown. A recent attempt to approve GM salmon failed.
China is one of the largest producers of GM crops.
Germany, Sweden and Czech Republic approved for growing GM potatoes.
Government Finland and the population are sensitive to genetically modified products. No GM crops are grown in the country as no approved GM crops are suitable for cultivation in the country due to weather conditions.
Government Zambia launched a campaign to get the public to support GM technology.
Canada widely uses GM crops. Almost all Canadian canola is GM, as is most soybeans and corn. Prince Edward Island tried and failed to ban GMO cultivation and currently grows GM crops there.
Spain currently grows GMO corn (about 20% of the country's corn is modified).
Czech Republic, Slovakia, Portugal, Romania everyone grows GMO corn.
Philippines grow GM crops.
Pakistan Since 2008, it has been growing genetically modified Bt cotton from Monsanto (cotton with the gene of the Bt bacterium (Bacillus Thuringiensis), since 2013 - GM eggplant, other crops are being approved.
European Union (EU) approved the cultivation of some GM crops (including potatoes and corn), but individual countries may refuse to grow them. However, most EU countries do not have the right to refuse the sale of genetically modified foods.
South Africa increases the number of GM crops grown.
England officially supports GM crops and conducts trials with already planted GM potatoes. However, there is widespread public mistrust of crops and Prince Charles has strongly opposed GMOs.
South America widely uses and grows GM crops.
As mentioned above, Thailand alternately supports and rejects GM crops.
India also makes extensive use of genetically modified cotton. It was mentioned above that the growth of Monsanto's genetically modified cotton crops led to tragedies throughout India. The Indian government even banned some common seeds from government seed banks in an attempt to please Monsanto (in return the country was given International Monetary Fund loans to boost the economy) and reduce poverty in the country. About 1,000 farmers in the country committed suicide every month due to crop failure and debt caused by growing genetically modified seeds. Farmers, after listening to Monsanto's promises of increased yields and pest resistance, were often willing to spend more money for “magic seeds” than regular seeds cost. Despite the promises, crops were often attacked by bollworms. Additionally, farmers were not warned that the crops required twice as much water as conventional cotton, causing many crops to dry out. Also, GM seeds had to be re-purchased for each new sowing season. Farmers accustomed to saving seeds year after year often found themselves in financial difficulties that led to insurmountable debt.
