The Alliance for Natural Health, which promotes natural and sustainable approaches to health, has produced some valuable science-based resources on GM.
1. ANH has created a short and useful document called the "GM Dirty Dozen", detailing the twelve most powerful reasons why we should be reducing, or eliminating, demand for GM crops – not trying to expand their cultivation:
2. In a separate article, ANH tells why UK environment secretary Owen Paterson is deluded in his recent speech hyping the potential of GM crops:
3. ANH founder Robert Verkerk PhD has written an article on the necessity of a precautionary approach to GM, which has been published in the Centenary edition of the New Statesman: http://www.anh-europe.org/ANH-Intl_Press_Release_Natural_health_watchdog_aims_to_trigger_balanced_GM_crop_debate
You have to buy the magazine to read the full article.
In the article, Dr Verkerk states: "Human tampering with gene flow, and specifically the insertion of genes from unrelated species or ones made synthetically, in a manner that overrides the rules of genetic exchange in nature, could have dire, unexpected and unpredictable, multigenerational effects on life on our planet — human life included. This has of course been the prevailing concern among the world’s most prominent ecologists who are opposed to GM crop cultivation."
On what the public is told, he comments: "The impression often given is that all scientists are supportive of the technology, while non-scientists who are resistant to it are either uninformed or unprepared to accept modern, industry-driven technologies. The public is not told that the majority of ecologists — the group of scientists whose professional background should provide the greatest insights over the implications of the technology — have deep reservations about the wide-scale adoption of the technology in agriculture. Rarely are politicians or the public told that GM crops have yet to demonstrate their potential to alleviate poverty or that they do not consistently offer improved yields or reduced agricultural inputs. Nor are they informed that nearly all major crop developments that have improved yields, drought resistance, insect or pathogen resistance, even in recent years, have been the result of non-GM plant breeding techniques."
On government propaganda, Dr Verkerk states: "While pro-GM governments continue to try their damnedest to turn around public objection to GM technology, the reality is that rational debates, scientific or otherwise, are very few and far between. Protagonists on each side of the debate appear to speak different languages, have markedly differing values, and will often profess a thorough understanding of risks and benefits when nearly all of the issues are plagued with uncertainty."
Dr Verkerk has long argued that it is too early to consider GM crops as safe, given that significant exposure of even the US population has been substantially less than 20 years: "The suggestion made by Professor Anne Glover, chief scientific advisor to the President of the European Commission, that GM crops are proven safe because Americans have been exposed to them for nearly 20 years is naïve at best. Most of this exposure has occurred recently given the 100-fold increase in GM crop area between 1996 and 2012. Moreover, epidemiological evidence of human health effects is likely to be, at least during these early years of exposure, lost as ‘noise’ within the growing epidemics of inflammatory diseases such as allergies and the big four, killer, chronic diseases; cancer, heart disease, diabetes and obesity."