The voice of the crying in the desert
Open letter in support of the development of genetic engineering in the Russian Federation
Mr. Chairman of the Government,
After you signed the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 839 dated September 23, 2013 "On the state registration of genetically engineered organisms", the activity of some public organizations and individual deputies of the State Duma trying to prevent the introduction of innovative biotechnologies into Russian agriculture has noticeably increased. This, of course, will lead to Russia lagging behind global competitors in this important industry, to the leakage of young promising biotechnologists abroad, to the loss of critical technologies. At the same time, materials from the yellow press and the opinions of incompetent persons, including self-proclaimed "experts on genetic security", are used as arguments against genetic modification technologies. These statements have no scientific basis and are designed for public fears and the lack of objective information on this issue among the population.
Genetically modified organisms are obtained as a result of the application of directed and controlled methods of changing genetic information. In this way, genetic engineering compares favorably with traditional breeding methods, which are based on unpredictable gene modification due to random mutations, often induced by chemical exposure to mutagens or using radiation.
Tools for the directed modification of the genetic information of organisms appeared in science in the 1970s. Genetically modified organisms have been used in applied medicine since 1982 (production of vitamins, antibiotics, vaccines, insulin, etc.) and in the agricultural sector since 1996. The number of lives saved by the very first product of this technology – recombinant insulin – is simply impossible to count. Modern approaches aimed at giving new features to organisms have gone very far from those used to create the first artificial bacteria. They have become even safer and more technologically advanced.
Since its introduction, genetic engineering products have been the focus of scientific research. Over the past 10 years alone, more than 1,700 scientific studies have been conducted to study the effects of GMOs on animal health, humans, the environment and not only (Nicolas et. al., Crit Rev Biotechnol., 2013). Such studies have also been conducted in our country (for example, Tyshko et al., Nutrition Issues, 2011). Researchers working within the framework of generally accepted scientific methodology come to the unanimous conclusion that neither the production of GMOs nor their consumption even for five generations (Snell et al., Food and Chemical Toxicology, 2012) carries any additional risks compared to conventional products. Such a huge amount of confirmed scientific data on safety cannot be demonstrated by any technology in the entire history of mankind.
On the contrary, in some cases, the use of GMOs can increase yields, reduce the pesticide burden on the environment (Brooks and Barfoot, GM Crops Food, 2013), in some cases increase biodiversity (Lu et al., Nature, 2012), reduce the amount of natural toxic substances in products (Wu, Trangenic Res., 2006).
All authoritative scientific organizations in the world, without exception, have come to similar conclusions. This is evidenced by the reports and decisions of the World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the US National Academy of Sciences, the European Commission.
The works that allegedly show the negative effect of GMOs are isolated and do not stand up to criticism. Over the past ten years, out of more than 770 papers devoted to the safety of GMOs as food for humans and animals, only three have raised suspicions that these products may be more dangerous than conventional ones (Nicole et. al., Crit Rev Biotechnol., 2013). One of these papers (Seralini et al., Food and Chemical Toxicology, 2012), due to the blatant incorrectness of the data analysis and the staging of the experiment, was apologetically withdrawn by the journal, and the results of the other two were never reproduced in subsequent studies and, therefore, cannot be considered reliable.
Some such studies are sponsored by businesses engaged in the production of "Non-GMO" products (including "Organic" products) or certification of such products. In fact, this is just an element of unfair market struggle aimed at denigrating a competitor product in the eyes of the consumer.
As an economic justification for the requirements to ban the cultivation of GMOs in Russia, some politicians put forward a certain "advantage" of Russia in the cultivation of environmentally friendly food, and the need to develop "organic agriculture".
At the same time, it is silent about the fact that the productivity of "organic" agriculture is 5-34% lower than usual, depending on the culture (Seufert et al., Nature, 2012), and that food grown by "organic" methods, in terms of nutritional value and health effects, does not differ from ordinary food (Smith-Spangler et al., Ann. Intern. Med., 2012), but it costs much more. Unfortunately, it is difficult for us to explain the active support for such an inefficient form of farming except by the fact that some activists and statesmen who oppose
the use of genetic engineering in agriculture, they themselves have a commercial interest related to the production of "organic" agricultural products or the market for testing products for the content of GMOs.
Fears that the Russian seed market will be "captured" by foreign companies when allowing GM technology products can be eliminated by creating a regime of maximum favorability for Russian developments in this area. At the same time, the registration procedure for such products, since they do not carry any additional risks, should be simplified as much as possible. Unlike multibillion–dollar investments in existing or even larger potential investments in "organic" agriculture, such an approach will require much lower costs on the part of the state and will quickly bring financial returns in the form of more productive, technologically advanced and safe crops.
In this regard, we consider it necessary:
1. To create the most favorable regime for the development of biotechnologies in the Russian Federation. Simplify the procedure for registration of genetically modified organisms of Russian production;
2. To create a consultative council on the development of genetic engineering in the Russian Federation, which on a competitive basis includes only scientists who are recognized experts in the world in the field of genetics or molecular biology;
3. In order to avoid possible lobbying by certain financially interested groups, all decisions regarding the development and implementation of genetic modification technologies should be made solely on the basis of the recommendations of the council. The work of the council should be open and transparent.
We consider it unacceptable that decisions concerning the future of domestic genetic engineering and agriculture should be made on the basis of myths published in the yellow press and the opinions of "experts" not recognized by the world scientific community, who have repeatedly compromised themselves both by incompetent statements in the media and outright lies. The prohibition of GMOs in Russia will not only damage healthy competition in the agricultural market, but will lead to a significant lag in the field of food production technologies, increased dependence on food imports, and undermine the prestige of Russia as a state in which the course for innovative development is officially declared.
Today, at 14.00 Moscow time, there are 77 signatures on the page of the ONR website with this letter. You can join us.
Portal "Eternal youth" http://vechnayamolodost.ru25.04.2014