Molecular engineering of crops has brought revolutionary advances in agriculture. In 2005, just ten years from their introduction, many GM crop varieties have been grown on about 5% of all global arable crop land in 21 countries by 8.5 million farmers, 90% of whom are resource-poor. Some developing countries have experienced GM varieties and benefited from them since several years and are now in position to affirm their need and their will to develop more GM farming in the developing world. We, the underlined Academies of sciences, worldwide, wish to state the following.

1/ Foods from GM crops are more extensively tested than any other and have been shown to be as safe as, or even sometimes safer than foods derived from the corresponding conventional plants. Ten years of human consumption and extensive nutritional testing amply support this conclusion (see the report of the IAP GMO initiative: “Are there health hazards for the consumer when eating food from genetically modified plants”).

Any food, GM or not, may certainly involve some risk – known or not, indexed or not – for human health. There is presently not the least scientific and/or medical evidence that the risks possibly entailed by the former would be higher than those entailed by the latter.

2/ The environmental impact of GM crops is no greater than that of traditional crops. In some cases GM crops have diminished the negative effects of current agricultural practices: thus, insect-resistant cotton requires mostly substantially decreased applications of chemical pesticides while herbicide-tolerant crops permit no-till practices, cutting energy use and promoting healthy soils. Seed-incorporated technology is particularly suitable for small farmers in developing countries. GM crops resistant to insects, viruses or fungi reduce farmers’ exposure to chemical pesticides, particularly when they are applied by hand sprays. The successful cultivation of GM cotton in China and South Africa shows how former subsistence farmers have significantly increased their income and dramatically improved quality of their life.

3/ In both developed and some developing countries, organic farmers already operate in an environment in which they are subject to influences from neighbouring activities. With proper separation safeguards the presence of genes encoding GM traits in organic products is trivial. Nothing in GM agriculture prevents organic farmers from pursuing their normal practices; while the rules of organic farming currently exclude the use of GM crops, there is no evidence-based justification for that position.

4/ GM crops can make a major global contribution to the quantity and quality of food. In developing countries, farmers suffer major crop losses caused by insects and diseases. GM technology has already shown that such losses can be significantly reduced, leading directly to improvements in food quality and safety (e.g. insect-resistant maize has appreciably lower levels of highly carcinogenic fungal toxins).

5/ Just as each consumer ought to have the right to adopt or reject GM food, so farmers in developing countries and elsewhere should be able to decide for themselves whether to plant conventional, organic or GM crops. For there to be choice, appropriate regulations including labelling of GM products must be in place, regulations that are proportionate and not excessive. The safety assessment procedures now enacted in developed countries for GM crops and products result in needlessly high costs and hinder the application of this valuable technology to the many crops grown in the developing world. For countries in those regions to have access to crop biotechnology for their own agriculture, international and non-profit organizations must help governments to formulate appropriate regulations and assist with the training of personnel to administer them.

6/ It is frequently argued that farmers growing GM crops loose their freedom when they are obliged to buy their seeds annually. It may be noted, however, that in most developing countries farmers are accustomed to using farmer saved seeds which is in many cases allowed by law, and this could also be applied to GM cultivars.

We, the underlined Academies of Sciences, worldwide, wish to denounce the arguments – when unsupported – used against genetically modified (GM) crops. On the basis of a wealth of experimental evidence about genetically modified (GM) crops – evidence that has accumulated in the past decade in many studies – we affirm that :

1- Foods from approved GM crops are not less safe for humans and animals as conventional crops;

2- Approved GM crops do not pose higher environmental hazards than conventional crops;

3- Small-scale farmers, not just large farms and multinational corporations, profit from the adoption of GM crops, which in turn contributes to the alleviation of poverty and hunger in the developing world;

4- GM crops pose no irresolvable conflict with either non-GM crops or organic farming;

5- GM crops can make major contributions to the quantity and quality of food in the world;

6- Freedom of choice should apply to all farmers and consumers, not just to some of them;

7- Decisions about the cultivation of GM crops and consumption of GM foods must be based on the best available science, not on ideological or political belief. We call on governments and environmental non-government organisations to end any unjustified campaigns against GM crops.

The participants of the international workshop of the IAP initiative on genetically modified crops were:

Dr. Ismail abdelHamid, Egypt Biotechnology Information Center (EBIC), Agricultural Genetic Engineering Research Institute (AGERI), Agricultural Research Center (ARC); Kairo / Egypt

Prof. Dr. Klaus Ammann, Prof. emerit. for Systematic Botany and Geobotany at the University of Bern/Switzerland; collaborator at the Africa Harvest Biotech Foundation International (http://supersorghum.org); Commission of Green Biotechnology of the Union of the German Academies of Sciences and Humanities; Bern / Switzerland

Prof. Dr. Maarten Chrispeels, Center for Molecular Agriculture, Division of Biological Sciences, University of California San Diego; San Diego / USA

Prof. Dr. Gerhard Gottschalk, President of the Union of the German Academies of Sciences and Humanities; Institute for Microbiology and Genetics, University of Goettingen; Goettingen / Germany

Prof. Dr. Hans Walter Heldt (moderator of the workshop); Albrecht-von-Haller-Institute for Plant Sciences of the University of Goettingen; Chairman of the Commission of Green Biotechnology of the Union of the German Academies of Sciences and Humanities; Goettingen / Germany

Prof. Dr. Klaus-Dieter Jany, Director of the Molekularbiologisches Zentrum of the Bundesforschungsanstalt fuer Ernaehrung; Commission of Green Biotechnology of the Union of the German Academies of Sciences and Humanities; Karlsruhe / Germany

Prof. Dr. Vivian Moses, Kings College, Division of Life Sciences; London / UK

Prof. Dr. Bernd Müller-Röber, Institute of Biochemistry und Biology of the University of Potsdam and Max-Planck-Institut für molekulare Pflanzenphysiologie in Potsdam; Commission of Green Biotechnology of the Union of the German Academies of Sciences and Humanities; Potsdam / Germany

Prof. Dr. Georges Pelletier, Génétique et Amélioration des Plantes INRA Versailles; Cedex / France

Prof. Dr. Yufa Peng, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences,
Institute of Plant Protection, Biosafety Research Centre; Peking / China

Prof. Dr. Zhen Zhu, Institute of Genetics and Developmental Biology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Deputy Director, General of Bureau of Life Sciences & Biotechnology; Peking / China


Members who participate in the formulation of the statements and the report but have unfortunately at the last minute not been able to attend the workshop:

Prof. Dr. Kameswara Rao, Foundation for Biotechnology Awareness and Education, Basavanagudi; Bangalore / India

Prof. Dr. Jocelyn Webster, Executive Director of AfricaBio (Nonprofit organisation serving as a forum for discussion on biotechnical issues in Africa); Irene / South Africa