GM is the acronym for "genetic modification." Genetic modification is now the 
term used by most of the English-speaking world to refer to genetic 
engineering. GMO, in turn, denotes a genetically modified organism.

For a complete definition of genetic engineering, see the Sierra Club policy 
on genetic engineering, which I helped write, and edited, in 2000.  
http://www.sierraclub.org/policy/conservation/biotech.asp

Genetic engineering makes changes in the genome of an organism that cannot be 
achieved using conventional breeding methods. Genes from completely unrelated 
species can be engineered into a plant. A fish gene, for example, has been 
engineered into a strawberry plant. 

It is the consensus of the Sierra Club national Genetic Engineering Committee 
(GEC), of which I am a voting member, that, in a phrase I wrote several years 
ago, "Genetic engineering is genetic damage, deliberately inflicted."

The genetic damage that is genetic engineering cannot be recalled, once a GMO 
has been released into the environment. GMOs can be considered a form of 
living pollution; their hacked genes will multiply and spread throughout the 
environment.

To produce a genetically-engineered organism is therefore a task that should 
be undertaken with the utmost care, even if the organism is to be confined to 
a laboratory. The release of GMOs into the environment, as is the case with 
farm crops that now cover millions of acres in Iowa, should be done with extreme 
caution, if it is done at all.

Extreme caution has not been used in the development and marketing of GMO 
farm crops. Our federal government, to the contrary, has been the enthusiastic 
promoter of GMOs in farming, under both Democratic and Republican 
administrations, dating back to at least the first Bush presidency.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), first of all, against the advice of 
staff scientists, adopted the false concept of substantial equivalence, which 
means that if only one or a few foreign genes are engineered into a plant, the 
plant remains so nearly the same as a normal plant that there is no need for 
safety testing. In fact, it is known that the GE process itself causes 
disturbances throughout the DNA of the plant. These mutations are ample cause for 
thorough safety testing, yet no such testing is being done. 

Based on the false doctrine of substantial equivalence, the FDA does not 
require labeling of foods containing GMO ingredients. If illnesses are being 
caused by GMOs in our food supply, therefore, it will be next to impossible to 
trace them to their source. Lack of labeling, as well, deprives consumers of their 
right to choose non-GMO foods.

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has seen its role not as 
the protector of consumers but as the protector of the genetic engineering 
industry.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has taken far too narrow a view of 
the environmental effects of planting GMO crops in the environment.

Tom

=============================================================
In a message dated 8/26/2005 6:42:29 AM Central Daylight Time, 
[log in to unmask] writes:


> Subj:Re: GM farming uses more pesticides not less
> Date:8/26/2005 6:42:29 AM Central Daylight Time
> From:    [log in to unmask] (Dennis & Linda Nicholson)
> Sender:    [log in to unmask] (Iowa Discussion, Alerts and 
> Announcements)
> Reply-to: <A HREF="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</A> (Iowa Discussion, Alerts and 
> Announcements)
> To:    [log in to unmask]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the risk of showing my ignorance, what is GM farming?  I suggest initials 
> be defined before being used.
> Dennis Nicholson
> 
> >> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: <A HREF="mailto:[log in to unmask]">Thomas Mathews</A> 
>> To: <A HREF="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</A> 
>> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 5:41 AM
>> Subject: GM farming uses more pesticides not less
>> 
>> 
>> I think it's time for an Exxpose Pioneer Hi-Bred campaign. (Sierra Club is 
>> now conducting an "Exxpose Exxon" campaign. Pioneer is based right here in 
>> Iowa; Exxon is not.) 
>> 
>> Tom Mathews 
>> 
>> Subj: GM farming uses more pesticides not less 
>> Date: 8/11/2005 3:16:09 AM Central Daylight Time 
>> From:    <A HREF="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</A> (Laurel Hopwood) 
>> Sender:    <A HREF="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</A> (Biotech Forum) 
>> Reply-to: <A HREF="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</A> (Biotech Forum) 
>> To:    [log in to unmask] 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> GM farming uses more pesticides not less 
>> A new report, "Genetically Engineered Crops and Pesticide Use in the United 
>> States: The 
>> First Nine Years" by Chuck Benbrook reveals that farmers now use more 
>> pesticides on 
>> the top three genetically engineered (GE) crops--corn, soybeans, and 
>> cotton--than on 
>> conventional varieties. It predicts that the intensity of herbicide use on 
>> GE crops is not 
>> likely to subside in the near future because of the popularity of herbicide 
>> tolerant (HT) 
>> varieties (tolerant to glyphosate), the limited supply of seeds for non-HT 
>> varieties, and 
>> increasingly aggressive pesticide industry campaigns targeting farmers 
>> growing HT 
>> crops. 
>> Available as a free download at 
>> http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_environment/biotechnology/page.cfm?pageID=154
>> 2 
>> 
>> 
> 



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Join us at Sierra Summit 2005.  For information go to:
http://www.sierrasummit2005.org/
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Sign up to receive Sierra Club Insider, the flagship
e-newsletter. Sent out twice a month, it features the Club's
latest news and activities. Subscribe and view recent
editions at http://www.sierraclub.org/insider/