The international Demeter movement, which is grouped farmers, processors, traders and consumers of bio-dynamic food rejects the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture. Based on the following reasons:
1. GM agriculture - Against the wishes of the people
The EU does not raise the basic question of whether people want the genetic modification. The decision, far-reaching and serious consequences, affects everyone who sits down to eat at the table, it is implanted in a non-democratic process. Over 70% of the population rejects GM agriculture. Most farmers fear for the image of agriculture. Consumer preference in Europe is towards a form of agriculture done in keeping with the nature in which the ethical views in relation to the care of animals and plants are critical. European agriculture now produces expensive surplus. An increase in production since GM does not make sense in economic terms.
2. No future for the European economic situation
It is questionable whether the introduction of the biotechnology industry - in fact a measure of rationalization - creates more jobs in agriculture and food industries. GM agriculture promotes uniform and industrial structures in the tendency to threaten the middle class in the production, processing and trade. This could lose more jobs than create by the GM industry. Europe regions depend on a strengthening of economic structures in place. This could also contain the consequences of globalization.
3. The problem of feeding in the Third World is not resolved through the transgenic agriculture
The claim that using GM technology could eliminate the problem of hunger lacks of substantiated information. For nearly two decades, this is based only on expectations. The problem of hunger in the Third World is primarily a problem of distribution and lack of purchasing power. The developing countries are helped more if local production is being promoted on a sustainable basis. To this are appropriate or adapted native species, they can be re-grown without license fees and require a minimum use of technical resources. GMO seeds are less expensive, since every year are re-bought and to achieve its potential yield you need fertilizer products to "protect" the plants, which are too expensive. As a movement that operates throughout the world, we know that for small structures, which are predominant in developing countries, organic agriculture makes a lasting economic security as regards the existence and power.
4. The patenting of plants and animals is not ethically justifiable
The production of GM seeds is linked to patent rights. But ethically, the plants are, however, a cultural heritage of all mankind, which should have free access to all the men. Unable to tolerate the industrial unions of seeds, as for example in India, to secure an exclusive patent in Vahas rice, according to that, farmers have to pay license for cultivation types of rice that they have been using for centuries, though their ancestors have created these plants growing through the planting and cultivation of them.
5. Wildlife and beneficial insects are threatened
Cultivation of GMOs may have negative consequences for the environment. According to data from the state institute of Nanking for environmental science in China, in the fields of Bollgard, cotton with GM, has clearly less beneficial insects, while the number of parasites increased. British scientists have shown, in the largest study done so far on the cultivation of GMOs on the environment, wildlife (including birds and butterflies) in two out of three surveyed crops (rapeseed, sugar beet and maize) was significantly more damaged by GMO crops, other than through conventional crops. Many other researches also show damage to the environment.
6. Missing research on long-term consequences of GM crop
It is alarming that there is no scientific proof that the cultivation of GMOs and GM food are harmless to the environment and human health. But these are necessary. For example, in the fruit crop rotation, only lead to certain outcomes, investigations of at least ten years, this is also for the consequences of the ecological system and OGM. Whether the ingestion of genetically modified plants poses a direct danger to health, there are signs that show an influence on metabolism. The use of transgenic soybeans in mice changes liver cell, and similarly modifying the intestinal flora with rape as honey bees. Thus, as noted, an involuntary change in genetic engineering as a plant, for example in the configuration of the potato leaves, could this have an influence on the man who consume?
7. Coexistence-base of decision of the EU is too one-sided
The European Commission reduced, in the case of genetic engineering, a relevant question at the ethical, political, social, health and environmental considerations purely economic. The pros and cons of a new technology and choice of an economic situation cannot be discussed separately, because the consequences are to be borne by society as a whole. The disintegration of a trade union and, without oversight, is not it, nor with the complex facts of nature. Risk estimates in the current form, they remain incomplete and biased.
8. Organic agriculture is threatened, the coexistence is not possible
Persons engaged in bio-dynamic agriculture are extremely concerned that a successful mode of production and according to nature, with more than 80 years, is threatened in their existence by being placed on a coexistence with the cultivation of GMOs. We must consider, as the reports that come through cross contamination of the seeds themselves, through the cultivation of GMO seeds. This is coupled with a multiplier effect. The proposed safety distances are not enough. Once substances genetically transformed are released into nature, no one can pick up or control them. A regulatory punishment cannot change anything.
9. Species of laboratory-no relation to the nature and the environment
Bio-dynamic farmers, as opposed to genetic engineering, include work in the exchange with the environment of an organism, taking into account the rhythmic influences of nature itself. In contrast, one must ask whether GMO seeds origin, derived solely from laboratory to create positive interactions with their environment, was disconnected from its natural environment.
10. Biotechnology claims for itself the image of genetic innovation.
With it you can transform propaganda for certain qualities of human beings, and save time in the cultivation of new species. It sounds modern. But the biology of evolution knows that horizontal gene transfer between species, as is done artificially in genetic engineering, only occurs naturally at the level of bacteria. Life has become more high types of barriers and created the sexual reproduction, allowing greater differentiation of life. That is, horizontal gene transfer is a resource that leads to an earlier developmental level. "Organic agriculture is innovation," the ministers of agriculture know that now. Modern agriculture is characterized by a surplus in the variety and growing as a share of the surplus in the joint adoption of agreements. Therein the real yield of crop agriculture lies. In contrast to this, genetic engineering is (despite the refinements in biotechnology) a cultural impoverishment. This is also in the market: Germany more than 150,000 people in 2000 against GM agriculture, the organic market is growing at a global level of 5-7% per year.
11. Loss of species diversity in agriculture-Monotony
GMO farming system leads to inherent genetic uniformity and thus to a genetic erosion - loss of variety - with large monotonous cultivation. Organic agriculture wants to preserve and promote the variety of species and genetic types, and thus the richness of the landscape. The bio-dynamic cultivation of plants for decades and producing species adapted to the site supports the on-farm conservation of species and offers a full sense of the genetic uniformity of the species derived from GMOs.
12. The GM industry is not transparent for the citizen - the farming itself.
The human need for security requires an understanding of the environment. The production of organic food is better controlled in areas worldwide. All steps in the process, all other additives., in many cases are regulated globally, i.e., encoded by the FAO and understandable worldwide. Biological farms are open to the consumer. Laboratories in the genetics industry are largely taboo to the public. Operations within the unit are hidden from the public eye. It advertises the products and transgenic arise, through images and statements that raise a false impression. This does not create any confidence, especially when they disguise the impact of GM agriculture to consumers.
13. Demeter - a successful practice of agriculture as an alternative to transgenic technology
Front of the transgenic technique, there is an alternative of bio-dynamic agriculture, a model already proven in practice. This federation, most of which is an organic whole, is also an example for organic agriculture. Companies realize bio-dynamic adaptation of resources and development of the site, specifically through a single crop. The technique promotes the industrialization of transgenic agricultural products and is the cause of the division of technology companies. The success of the method of bio-dynamic agriculture is among other things, along with a high quality of food produced (length, taste, ripening), an increase of soil fertility and variety of species, as able to demonstrate the comparative cultivation experiments over many years. This model can be achieved simply through the study and is not subject to the purchase of technical or payment for patents, as in GM agriculture.