The Pros and Cons of GE Food
by Sean McDonagh SSC
Biotech corporations
use a number of arguments to promote genetic engineering. On the one hand they
claim that what they are doing is in continuity with traditional breeding procedures.
In their view genetic engineering is only a more refined technology for
improving plant productivity. They allege
that those who are opposed to this new technology are, in fact, modern day Luddites
who have an irrational aversion to all new technology. Opponents of genetically
engineered food naturally deny this censure.
They also point out that not all technologies have benefited humankind
or the environment.
Let us examine the claim that
genetically engineered organisms are in continuity with traditional biotechnology.
Genetic engineering entails the manipulation of organisms at cellular level to
produce altered organisms with whatever desired traits are required.
Genetic scientists cut out bits of a living organism's DNA, genes, and
splice them into totally unrelated species. As
we have seen above, animal genes are spliced into plants, bacteria genes are moved
across to food crops, and even human genes are used to change animals and plants. The imported genes can destroy or influence
the activity of other genes so that a completely new organism is created whose
responses in a particular environment are unpredictable.
Traditional forms of biotechnology
have been around for thousands of years. These include the processes of making beer,
wine, bread and cheese or the practice of selective breeding that humans have
engaged in since the domestication of plants and animals over 11 thousand years
ago. Farmers have developed new breeds of animals and plants, down through the
centuries, through selective cross breeding.
However, this type of biotechnology did not involve breeding between completely
unrelated species which is not possible. Traditional breeding never entailed any
interference with DNA. No foreign DNA has even been added or taken away with traditional
biotechnology.
Recombinant DNA technology
cannot be called working with nature in any meaningful sense of that term. It is not natural for one species to cross
breed with a completely unrelated species, or for genetic material to exchange
between unrelated species. It manipulates
life in ways that could never occur naturally, and places control of evolution
itself in the hands of molecular biologists.
That is why
it is quite problematic. Traditional forms of biotechnology leave the natural
balance of genes, species and ecosystems intact. Genetic engineering, on the other
hand, has the potential to upset this balance irreversibly and to threaten the
very diversity of life on our planet.
Genetic engineering circumvents
the barrier that exists between different species. It allows for the addition
or deletion of proteins in ways not possible through reproduction, creating organisms
that are missing essential proteins or harbouring entirely new ones.
Genetic engineering brings together genetic material in a way nature never
would do.
Nevertheless
we will see later that the regulatory body for food in the US the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) has chosen to treat transferred genes as natural food products
as long as they come from an approved food source, thereby failing to consider
the unpredictable effects which the old gene may have in its new system.
One does not need to be a Luddite
to have serious questions about particular aspects of modern technology. The sad
irony is that modern technology, especially in its chemical and nuclear phase,
while it has delivered benefits to a segment of humanity in the form of better
nutrition and longer life-span, has wreaked havoc on the planet. Today, its impact
is so extensive and damaging that it threatens the future of many life forms,
including humankind itself.
There are many other examples
where new technologies appear to benefit humankind on one level but on the macro-scale
they cause massive problems. The internal combustion engine has brought increased
mobility to many people in the 20th century. Yet, the increased number of cars
around the world emitting greenhouse gases threatens to destabilize the planet's
climate system. A few hundred million cars on good roads in different parts of
the world will bring ease of mobility and comfort to many.
Five billion cars, on the other hand, could have potentially catastrophic
consequences for humans and other creatures. What this means is that we need to
look at the scale of our technology. This will inevitably mean that we will have
to radically restructure much of our contemporary technologies for the simple
reason that they are unsustainable in our finite world.
It is also true that in recent
times many discoveries have been found to have very adverse, unintended effects
that those who developed them were unaware of. A few examples will suffice: It took over two
decades for scientists like Rachel Carson to discover the impact of DDT on the
reproductive behaviour of birds. The widespread use of DDT began after the Swiss
chemist Paul Muller discovered that it was a potent pesticide. In the 1940s it
was used globally, especially in malaria eradication schemes in southern Europe,
Africa, Latin America and Asia. DDT was cheap and it appeared harmless to everything except insects.
DDT is highly persistent in
the environment and like other organochlorines it bioaccumulates in the fatty
tissues of animals. In 1962 Rachel Carson
published her famous book Silent Spring detailing the impact of DDT on
the environment. She pointed out among other things that DDT was linked with the
thinning of eggshells in many species of birds and their consequent failure to
reproduce. Birds of prey like the eagle, osprey and peregrine falcon were particularly
affected. It was also discovered that
DDT caused cancer. In 1971 after a protracted
battle against chemical companies that produced DDT it was banned in the USA.
Since then it has been banned in many Northern countries, though it is
still used widely in the Third World.
For almost fifty years chlorofluorocarbon
(CFCs) was considered to be the perfect chemical for refrigeration. Then in the
1970s it was discovered that (CFCs) destroy the ozone layer of the atmosphere
which protects humans and other creatures and plants from the damaging ultraviolet
rays of the sun. Many of the chemical companies that manufactured CFCs denied
the connection until the mid-1980s. Eugene
Linden writing in Time magazine (May 10, 1993) claims that "in the United States those who had the power to take action engaged in
self-delusion: The Reagan Administration at first dismissed the ozone threat as
a non-issue, while Du Pont and other manufacturers underestimated future sales
of CFCs making the hazard seem minimal". Both industry and the regulatory agency were very much to blame
[2].
While all the above technologies
have changed the human condition and the environment in various ways, none are
as intrusive as genetic engineering for the simple reason that it allows humans
to scramble and re-programme the genetic code of all life forms on earth, including
humans. This is an awesome possibility and needs to be approached slowly and with
great care. Commercial considerations
must not be allowed to promote this technology full steam ahead, without a long
and through public debate about the potential benefits to humankind and the earth
and possible nightmares that might be created.
Will biotech Agriculture Feed the World?
The
most common argument from proponents of this technology is that genetically engineered
food will be necessary to feed the growing world population. The biotechnology
industry asserts that the new technology will bring huge benefits to human beings
in the area of food production and health care. They argue that if population
levels rise to 10 billion it will be necessary to either increase land areas now
under cultivation or increase crop yields by new technologies like genetic engineering.
They point out that it is almost impossible to extend farming any further
because the land is marginal cultivating it will only exacerbate soil erosion.
Biotech companies like Monsanto claim that one of the main reasons they opted
for genetically engineered crops is that they are convinced that GE food will
be needed to feed a growing world population.
Monsanto’s chief executive, Robert Shapiro (at
the time) developed this theme in a long interview with Joan Magretta in the Harvard
Business Review January-February 1997 [3]. He argued that genetic engineering of food
crops is a further improvement on the Green Revolution that saved Asia from starvation
in the 1960s and 1970s. Similar arguments have been put forward by scientists,
including Professor Christopher Leaver, professor of plant sciences at the University
of Oxford. He points to the harsh realities
of global population increase and shrinking agricultural lands. He claims that
the only way to feed this growing population is through the use of gene technology.
He also believes that it will be more environmentally friendly as it will involve
the use of fewer chemicals in agriculture [4].
Critics of genetic
engineering reject the argument that GE foods will stave off global famine. They
also question the accepted wisdom that the impact of the Green Revolution has
been entirely positive. Dr. Vandana Shiva in correspondence with Norman Borlaug,
considered by many to be the father of the Green Revolution, debunks many of the
myths surrounding the Green Revolution. Dr. Shiva challenges the first myth that India
was unable to feed itself until the Green Revolution was launched. She points out that the last famine in India
took place in 1942 during British rule. She
admits that India experienced a severe drought in 1966 and was forced to import
10 thousand tons of grain from the US. She indicts the US administration who "exploited this scarcity in its use of food
as a weapon and forced non-sustainable, resource-inefficient, capital and chemical-intensive
agriculture on one of the most ancient agricultural civilisations in the world.
American agricultural experts like Borlaug did not introduce the Green Revolution
to 'buy time' for India. They introduced it to sell chemicals to India
[5]".
It is also important
to remember that the Green Revolutions is not simply a scientific story about
hybrid crops, irrigation systems, cheap nitrogen and pesticides.
John H. Perkins in his book Geopolitics
and the Green Revolution [6]
recounts the environmentally destructive and socially unjust aspect of the Green
Revolution. In detailed case studies Perkins
insists that much of the energy behind the development of new varieties of crops
stemmed from national security concerns in the U.S., Mexico, India, the United
Kingdom and other countries. The theory was that unless a growing population was
able to harvest more food there could be major security problems, especially the
rise of Marxist guerilla movements. This led planners to focus exclusively on
increasing crop yield even at the expense of exacerbating social inequity and
undermining biodiversity. Curbing population growth was also a key US foreign
aid objective in the 1960s and 1970s. The reality of course is that famine is
caused by problems associated with the distribution of land and food rather than
population growth per se. It is also interesting to see how foundations
closely connected to transnational corporations were instrumental in promoting
the Green Revolution. These include both the Ford Foundation and the Rockerfeller
Foundation.
The same "feed the world" arguments
are being recycled by the promoters of genetic engineering today. In reality famine and hunger around the world
have more to do with the absence of land reform, social inequality, biases against
women in many cultures, lack of access to cheap credit and basic technologies,
rather than a lack of agribusiness super seeds. As we will see in the case of Argentina planting
GE soya, which is a cash crop, can even exacerbate poverty, especially for poor
farmers.
This fact was
recognized by the participants who attended the World Food Summit in Rome in November
1996. They acknowledged that the main
causes of hunger are economic and social. People are hungry because they do not
have access to food production processes or the money to buy food.
Those who wish to banish hunger should address those social and economic
inequalities that create poverty and not pretend that a 'magic' technology will
solve all the problems.
My experience
confirms this approach. I lived in Mindanao during the El Nino induced drought
of 1983. There was a severe food shortage among the tribal people in the highlands.
The drought destroyed their cereal crops and they could no longer get food in
the tropical forest because they had been logged during the previous decades.
Even during the height of the drought agribusiness corporations were exporting
tropical fruit from the lowlands. There
was sufficient rice and corn in the lowlands but the tribal people did not have
the money to buy it. Had it not been for food-aid from NGOs many would have starved.
Devindar Sharma, chairman of
he Forum for Biotechnology and Food Security in New Delhi resonates with my own
experience on the ground in Mindanao. He dismisses the claim that biotech food
will feed the world. He told the meeting of the World Conference on Food and Farming
in London in November 2002 that "claiming that bio-technology or free trade is needed to solve the problem
(of hunger) is a deliberate distortion"[7]. He asked the audience to look at the experience
of India under pressure from the WTO. 320 million people in India go to bed hungry
each night despite the fact that India has 65,000 tonnes of food in storage. India
is also exporting food because the poor cannot afford to buy the food. The government
of India supports this because food exports bring in much need foreign currency.
But it does not help India's poor.
Returning to
Professor Leaver's article in The Guardian, I find it interesting that
he is silent about the economic and social factors, like land ownership, that
gives rise to poverty and malnutrition. He confines his suggestions to hi-tech
solutions, which in my experience usually benefit the better off farmers. GE soya
in Argentina has helped wealthy farmers. Does he think that agribusiness companies
will distribute genetically engineered food free to the hungry poor who have no
money? Is land reform and economic policies aimed at helping small, subsistence
farmers, no longer important? Is he not
worried that genetic engineering will give enormous control of the staple foods
of the world to a handful of Northern agribusiness companies?
Most other people consider these companies to be dedicated, first and foremost
to making profits.
It is worth remembering that
the Green Revolution has contributed to the "loss of three-quarters of the
genetic diversity of major food crops and that the rate of erosion continues at
close to 2 per cent per annum " [8].
The development by a Monsanto
owned company of what is benignly called a Technology Protection System, but what
is more aptly called 'terminator' technology, is another reason for asserting
that the feed the world argument is completely spurious. This technology, if it becomes widespread,
will surely strike the death knell for the 2.4 billion small, subsistence farmers
who live mainly in the Third World. Sharing
seeds among farmers has been at the very heart of subsistence farming since the
domestication of staple food crops eleven thousand years ago.
The terminator technology would effectively stop farmers sharing seeds.
Hope Shand, the research director with the Canadian RAFI group is alarmed
at such a development. "Half the world's farmers are poor. They provide
food for more than a billion people but they can't afford to buy seeds every growing
season. Seed collection is vital for them" [9].
Terminator technology will enable Monsanto to control and profit from farmers
from every corner of the globe. It will
lock farmers into a regime of buying genetically engineered seeds that are herbicide-tolerant
and insect-resistant, copper-fastening them on to the chemical thread-mill.
For poor farmers in Third World countries, and the communities who
depend on the food they produce, the widespread dissemination of terminator seeds
food will mean hunger, starvation and death. It is worth noting that the farmers of the South are the target
market for terminator seeds. Delta and Pine have specifically suggested that rice
and wheat farmers in countries like India, China and Pakistan are a priority market.
At an ethical level I suggest
that a technology that, according to Professor Richard Lewontin of Harvard University,
“introduces a ‘killer’ transgene that prevents the germ of the harvested grain
from developing” must be considered grossly immoral [10].
Furthermore, if anything goes wrong the terminator genes could spread to neighbouring
crops and wild and weedy relatives of the plant that has been engineered to commit
suicide. This would jeopardize the food security of many poor people. No wonder
that there are those who consider it a form of biological warfare on subsistence
farmers.
Some of the agribusiness
companies promote their technology by talking about transferring the technology
to the South. To date there has been very little transfer of genetic engineering
technology from the transnational corporations to Third World countries. The appearance
of ‘terminator’ technology shows that
Northern companies are doing everything possible to avoid any such transfer of
technology. The World Bank Panel on Transgenic Crops concluded
that technology transfer between transnational corporations and less developed
countries were so rare that the examples they cited were exceptional[11].
Given the huge
financial stakes involved in biotech crops it is understandable that all the stops
are being pulled out in this battle for control of food production. The biotechnology industry has retained the
services of a global PR company Burson Marsteller. This company specializes in
crisis management and handling difficult or unsavoury situations. For example it advised Babcock and Wilcox,
the builders of the Three Mile Island nuclear installation in the US, during the
crisis in 1979. It also helped Union Carbide
manage publicity in the aftermath of the Bhopal tragedy which killed over 1500.
Among its clients, in recent times were the repressive regimes in Indonesia, Argentina
and South Korea.
In a document
that was leaked to the press in August 1997 Burston Marsteller advised the biotech
companies "that they cannot hope to
win the argument over the risks posed by genetically modified food, including
the environmental dangers (The Guardian August 6, 1997). The biotech companies were advised to focus
on "symbols, not logic". These
symbols ought to elicit "hope, satisfaction, caring and self-esteem"
[12].
In an article
in The Guardian called "The Fake Persuaders" George Monbiot claims
that the corporate world is now inventing people to rubbish their opponents on
the internet. According to him "messages
purporting to come from disinterested punters are planted on listservers at critical
moments, disseminating misleading information in the hope of recruiting real people
to the cause. Detective work by campaigner Jonathan Matthew and the freelance
journalist Andy Rowell show how a PR firm contracted to the biotech Monsanto appear
to have played a crucial but invisible role in shaping scientific discourse".
Many people feel
that the dangers that are posed by the tidal wave of biotechnological products
are real and that a world-wide moratorium on the deliberate release of genetically
engineered organism be put in place until the technology is much safer.
At a meeting in Asilomar in 1975 a group of scientists drawn from the Committee
on Recombinant DNA of the US National Academy of Sciences, which included the
Nobel Prize winner, James Watson, warned about the dangers of genetic engineering.
They stated, "there is serious concern that some of these artificially recombinant
DNA molecules could prove biologically hazardous" [13].
This conference upheld the moratorium on recombinant DNA experiments. Jeremy Rifkins accepts that the reason for
the moratorium had more to do with the potential legal liabilities of creating
bio-hazards than concern for the human health of environmental risks of the new
technology[14].
Almost 20 years
later an international group of scientists meeting in Malaysia in July 1994 called
attention to the scientific flaws inherent in the genetic engineering paradigm.
They believe that genetic engineering is based on the false premise that
each individual feature of an organism is encoded in one or more specific, stable
genes and that the transfer of these genes results in the transfer of these discrete
features. The truth is that no gene works
in isolation but as part of an extremely complex genetic network. In fact the function of each gene is dependent
on the context of all the other genes in the genome. The same gene, for example, will have very
different effects from individual to individual, because other genes are different.
The scientists
who met in Malaysia pointed out that the development of any trait results from
many complex interactions between genes and their cellular context and the external
environment. There are numerous layers
of feedback mechanisms linking all these levels. These scientists insist that, in a significant
number of cases, it is impossible to predict the consequences of transferring
a gene from one type of organism to another. Furthermore, genetically engineered organisms,
especially micro-organisms, may migrate, mutate and be transferred to other organisms
and species. In some cases the stability
of affected organisms and ecosystems could be affected and threatened [15].
Potential Risks to Humans and
the Environment
Some of the risks to human
health and the environment include: the potential to cause allergies; an increase
in antibiotic resistance and toxicity; misleading the consumer into thinking that
the produce is fresh and, finally, unpredictable gene expression in the engineered
organism. A group of scientists in the
United States calling themselves the Council for Responsible Genetics have
called for a more proactive approach from the regulatory agency which is the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) in monitoring and regulating genetically engineered
foods, because of these risks.
Allergies
It is well-known that allergies
in humans are caused by particular proteins. Genetic engineering involves adding new proteins
to altered products. The FDA warns that new proteins in foods might cause allergic
reactions in some people. Transgenic
crops could bring new allergens into foods that sensitive individuals would not
be in a position to avoid. It is possible for example to transfer the gene for
one of the many allergenic proteins found in milk into vegetables like carrots.
People who ought to avoid milk would not be aware that transgenic carrots
contained milk proteins.
It is important to emphasise that this problem
is unique to genetic engineering. Genetic
engineering routinely moves proteins into the food supply from organisms that
have never been consumed as food by human beings. Some of those proteins could be food allergens,
since virtually all known food allergens are proteins. Recent research should
alert the public to the possibility of an increase in allergenicity as a result
of genetic engineering. A study by scientists at the University of Nebraska found
that soybeans genetically engineered to contain Brazil-nut proteins caused reactions
in individuals allergic to Brazil nuts. Blood serum from people known to be allergic
to brazil nuts was tested for the appropriate anti-body response to the gene transferred
to the soya bean. When seven out of nine volunteers responded
to the genetically engineered soybean the researchers concluded that the allergenicity
had been transferred with the transferred gene.
Scientists have a limited ability
to predict whether a particular protein will be a food allergen, if consumed by
humans. The only sure way to determine whether protein will be an allergen is
through experience. Thus importing proteins, particularly from non-food sources,
is always a gamble from the point of view of allergenicity.
It is generally recognized that there has been a significant rise in allergies,
especially among children in recent decades. With 8 percent of children showing
allergic reactions to many commonly eaten foods it seems foolish in the extreme
to do anything that might increase allergenicity. It is also worth bearing in
mind that many of the genes being transferred to the trangenetic food have never
been part of the human diet since the beginning of human evolution over two million
years ago.
Antibiotic Resistance
Genetic engineering often uses
genes for antibiotic resistance as "selectable markers". Early in the
engineering process, these markers help select cells that have taken up the foreign
genes. Although they have no further use, the genes continue to be expressed in
plant tissues. Most genetically engineered plant foods carry fully functioning
antibiotic resistant genes. The most commonly used marker genes are the npt11
gene that confers resistance to kanamycin, neomycin and geneticin and the bla gene that confers resistance to ampicillin.
The presence of antibiotic
resistant genes in foods could have two harmful effects. First, eating these foods
could reduce the effectiveness of antibiotics that are taken with such a meal.
Antibiotic resistance genes produce enzymes that can degrade antibiotics. If a
tomato with an antibiotic resistant gene is eaten at the same time as an antibiotic,
it could destroy the antibiotic in the stomach.
Secondly, the resistant genes
could be transferred to human or animal pathogens, making them impervious to antibiotics.
If transfer were to occur, it could aggravate the already serious health problem
of antibiotic-resistant disease organisms. Although unmediated transfers of genetic
material from plants to bacteria is highly unlikely, even a slight risk of this
happening ought to require careful scrutiny in light of the seriousness of antibiotic
resistance in the population at large. The discovery by scientists at Cologne
University in 1998 that DNA, which had been fed to a mouse, survived in the digestive
system and subsequently invaded other cells in the mouse's body should raise serious
questions and slowdown the entry of GE products into the food chain until there
is much more research on their ultimate impact on human health.
In July 2002 new evidence from
British scientists working at the University of Newcastle raised serious questions
about the safety of GE foods. Research
commissioned by the United Kingdom's Food Standards Agency (FSA) found that genes
from antibiotic-resistant gene markers had found their way into the human gut.
The scientists took seven volunteers who had their lower intestine removed and
were now using colostomy bags. The volunteers were fed a meal which consisted
of a burger with GE soya and a milkshake. The researchers compared their stools
with 12 people with normal stomachs. The researchers found to their surprise that
a relatively large proportion of genetically engineered DNA survived the passage
through the small bowel. The research
showed that no GE material survived the passage through the entire human digestive
tract. Nevertheless the very fact that
antibiotic-resistant marker genes were identified for the first time in the human
gut, something the proponents of GE food said could not happen, has given rise
to a genuine fear that this could compromise antibiotic resistance in the population
at large[16].
It is also true that the highly
mosaic character of most vector constructs makes them structurally unstable and
prone to recombination. According to scientists opposed to genetic engineering,
this may be why viral-resistant transgenic plants generate recombinant viruses
more readily than non-trangenetic plants [17].
Production of New Toxins
Many organisms have the ability
to produce toxic substances. These substances help the organism defend itself
against many predators in their environment. In some cases, plants contain inactive
pathways leading to toxic substances. The addition of new genetic material, through
genetic engineering, could reactivate these inactive pathways. Alternatively it
could increase the levels of toxic substances
within the plants. This could happen, for example, if the on/off signals associated
with the introduced gene were located on the genome in places where they could
turn on the previously inactive genes. In the light of these considerations many argue
that genetically engineered foods pose new and unique challenges in terms of food
safety.
Concentration of Toxic Metals
Some of the new genes being
added to crops can remove heavy metals like mercury from the soil and concentrate
them in the plant tissue. The purpose of creating such crops is to make possible
the use of municipal sludge as fertilizer. Sludge contains useful plant nutrients,
but often cannot be used as fertilizer because it is contaminated with toxic heavy
metals. The idea is to engineer plants to remove and sequester those metals in
inedible parts of plants. In a tomato, for example, the metals would be concentrated
in the roots; in potatoes in the leaves. Turning on the genes in only some parts
of the plants requires the use of genetic on/off switches that turn on only in
specific tissues, like leaves.
Such products pose risks of
contaminating foods with high levels of toxic metals if the on/off switches are
not completely turned off in edible tissues. There are also environmental risks
associated with the handling and disposal of the metal-contaminated parts of plants
after harvesting. This is a classic example
of a technological fix for an environmental problem that ought to be addressed
at its source. The way to guarantee that sewage sludge can be used in agriculture
is to ensure that toxic substances do not enter sewerage plants in the first place.
Generally when people focus
on health hazards associated with genetic engineering they concentrate on the
genetic material that is added to organisms. There is also the possibility that
the removal of genes can cause problems. For example, genetic engineering might
be used to produce decaffeinated coffee beans by deleting or turning off genes
associated with the production of caffeine. But caffeine helps protect coffee
beans against fungi. Beans that are unable to produce caffeine might be coated
with fungi, which can produce toxins. Fungal toxins, such as aflatoxin, are potent
human toxins that can remain active through processes of food preparation.
Finally it is worth noting that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
is concerned that toxins may be produced at unusually high levels as a result
of genetic engineering.
Diminished Nutritional Quality
A possible consequence of genetically
engineered foods is an alteration of the nutritional content of the resulting
product. The FDA cautions that nutritional value could be significantly decreased
without the crop exhibiting any outward signs. Humans have come to rely on certain
characteristics of fruits and vegetables to indicate nutritional quality and flavour.
For example, bright colour in peppers, apples and other fruits is generally associated
with taste and ripeness. Genetic engineering may mislead consumers into buying
fruits and vegetables which appear to be fresh and just about ripe, but in fact
are engineered to last longer on the shelf and as a consequence may lack nutritional
quality. This would have serious implications
for public health and needs to be taken on board by monitoring and regulatory
agencies.
Potential Future Problems
History has shown that it takes
a few decades for the full set of risks associated with any technology to be identified.
In the 1920s no one predicted that CFCs could cause such harm to the ozone layer.
The ability to imagine what might go wrong with genetic engineering is limited
by the current knowledge in such disciplines as physiology, genetics, and nutrition.
We should not
forget too quickly how pressures from the food industry and government agencies
led to the failure of the UK authorities to link BSE with a new variant of the
incurable human condition CJD. Those who raised questions about this connection
in the mid-1980s were often criticised and even ridiculed by their colleagues.
Dr. Tim Holt, a Yorkshire doctor, told a UK government enquiry into BSE
how a pathologist at the Government's central veterinary laboratory investigating
mad cow disease said that the transmission to humans was as "unlikely as
a being struck by lightening"[18]. Finally, with other faulty technology mistakes
can be rectified by redesigning the machinery, mistakes in the area of genetic
engineering are much more difficult to correct.
The need for caution is highlighted
by the controversy surrounding the production of transgenetic pigs to provide
organs for human transplant operations. Companies on both sides of the Atlantic have engineered pigs to
carry human protein on the surface of their cells so that the organs will not
be rejected by the human immune system. At
first glance this seems to be a practical way of meeting the demand for organs
for transplant operations. Unfortunately, researchers have found that the pigs
can carry at least two retroviruses. One of these has the potential to infect
human cells. Even though the US Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) have been provided with the results of the research
they have continued to allow the transplants to take place. One of the researchers
involved felt that the least the FDA should have done is ban the transplants [19].
Given the presence of these viruses many scientists would argue that pig organs
can never be a safe replacement for human lives [20].
Environmental Concerns
Genes form a holistic system,
with one gene affecting multiple traits and multiple genes affecting one trait.
Consequently, scientists cannot always predict how a single gene will be expressed
in a new system. For example, splicing a gene for human growth hormones into mice
produces very large mice; splicing the same gene into pigs produces skinny, cross-eyed,
arthritic animals. The FDA warns that splicing a single gene into an organism
for a single desired effect may unintentionally cause other harmful reactions
within that organism which are not detectable.
Organisms engineered to grow
under adverse conditions run the risk of becoming weeds either directly or by
breeding with wild relatives. Here, weeds means all plants which are found in
places where humans do not want to have them growing. In each case, the plants
are found growing unaided and have unwanted effects as far as the farmer is concerned.
If genetically engineered plants became weeds this could damage large tracts of
agricultural lands, severely limit crop yields and cause immeasurable destruction
to sensitive ecosystems.
Some weeds result from the
accidental introduction of alien plants, but many are the result of organisms
introduced for agricultural and horticultural purposes. Johnson grass that was
intentionally introduced into the United States has become a serious weed. In Britain serious damage is being caused by
escaped mink that have no natural predator in that environment. In the Galapagos Islands feral cats have wreaked
havoc on the defence-less island fauna. In Africa the South American Water Hyacinth
has choked freshwater habitats. The ecologist
Dr. Bill Crowe points out that, in Ireland, introduced species like rhododendron
and cherry laurel have clogged canals and choked shrub habitat. In Sligo, in 2001,
whole bee populations had to be exterminated because of a diseases introduced
from Germany. In the past few years the
zebra mussel has proliferated in the Shannon and is doing untold damage[21].
It is completely
plausible that a new combination of traits, produced as a result of genetic engineering,
might enable crops to thrive in an environment in which they would then be considered
a weed. For example a rice plant engineered to be salt-tolerant if it escaped
into a marine estuaries could cause enormous damage.
The possibility that this will happen increases as more and more genetically
engineered organisms are released into the environment.
Gene Transfer to Wild or Weedy
Relatives
Biotech scientists and regulators
often dismiss the possibility of genetically engineered crops becoming super weeds
because they argue that most staple crops have been so weakened genetically by
the domestication process that the addition of an engineered trait will not enhance
their competitiveness. While this might be true of crops like corn,
many crops like alfafa, barley, potatoes, wheat, sorghum, broccoli, cabbage and
radishes do retain their weedy traits. For
example, a gene changing the oil composition of a crop might move into nearby
weedy relatives in which the new oil composition would enable the seeds to survive
the winter. The ability to survive winter cold might allow the plant to become
a weed or might intensify the weedy properties it already possessed.
This is why Dr. Margaret Mellon, a molecular biologist, and Dr. Jane Rissler,
a plant pathologist both of whom work with the Union of Concerned Scientists
in the US argue that the "possibility
that engineering will convert crops into new weeds is a major risk of genetic
engineering" [22].
Even more serious is the danger
of what is called "gene flow". This refers to the possibility of transferring a gene from a transgenetic
plant to a weedy relative by way of cross-pollination. Novel genes placed in crops
will not necessarily stay in the fields in which they are planted. If relatives
of the altered crops are growing near the field, the new gene can easily move,
via pollen, into those plants. The new traits might confer on to the wild or weedy
relatives of crop plants the ability to thrive in unwanted places, making them
weeds as defined above. If an herbicide resistant gene jumped to a wild weedy
relative then that plant might become resistant to the particular herbicide. This
form of genetic pollution could easily become a major nuisance to farmers world
wide.
European farmers fear that
if genetically engineered oilseed rape is planted in Europe that "herbicide-tolerant rape will undoubtedly
become part of the established volunteer weed populations that occur in many cereal
rotations..." [23].
The infestation may occur even where farmers do not grow the GE oilseed rape themselves.
It can happen that a GE oilseed rape grown in an adjacent field can pollinate
plants in a neighbouring field and produce seeds that are herbicide tolerant. In August 2002 Paul Brown wrote in The Guardian (August 17,
2002) that new research showed that cross fertilisation between GE crops and weeds
can lead to a new generation of superweeds. These will be resistant to the same
herbicide that once made the crop special and wiped out their supposed advantage.
Mistakes can also happen as
the following two examples demonstrate. In
the late 1980s a company called Biotechnica International genetically engineered
a micro-organism (Bradyrhizobium japonica) to improve nitrogen fixation in plants.
The company contracted the Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station to
conduct field trials for one year by planting soybeans coated with the genetically
engineered rhizobia. After the experiment the plants and seeds were incinerated,
the fields were reploughed and replanted and Biotechnica ceased to have anything
to do with the field trials. However,
subsequent trials on that land revealed that the genetically engineered rhyzobia
were out-competing the indigenous strain. This was not expected to happen. The act of re-ploughing the area,
rather than helping, in fact spread the genetically engineered rhyzobia over a
four acre plot. The case illustrates the
unpredictability of genetically engineered experiments according to one scientist.
" One of the major considerations about this case is that a microbe for which
there existed an extensive historical database was used in a well-planned and
thoroughly reviewed experiment, and an unpredictable result was still obtained"
[24].
A genetically engineered bacterium
(Klebsiella) was found to produce dramatic changes in the soil food web and therefore
to inhibit plant growth. The bacteria
were engineered to produce ethanol from agricultural waste as a way of generating
fuel. But when added to the soil it was found that it produced a significant decrease
in growth in both roots and the shoots of wheat.
There was also a decrease in beneficial soil fungi, an increase in parasitic
nematodes and bacteria. Stopping the spread of such a bacteria, once
released, will be very difficult [25].
In November 2002 the US government
ordered a company called Prodigene to destroy 500,000 bushels of soya beans that
had been contaminated by genetically engineered maize. It appears that this company
was attempting to grow different medicines, from hepatitis B vaccine to an insulin
making enzyme, inside the kernel of genetically engineered corn. The company had
planted a test field but, for reasons that are still unclear, the crop failed.
Next the company decided to plough up the field and plant it with conventional
soya destined for the human food chain. Unfortunately the gene from the medical
crop was taken up into the soya. Thankfully this was spotted before it reached
the food chain. It is estimated that experiments on genetically
engineered pharmaceutical products are thought to be taking place at over 300
secret locations in the US alone. Some of these proteins are designed to act as
vaccines, contraceptives, to induce abortions, create blood clots, produce industrial
enzymes and propagate allergenic enzymes. One does not need to be a scientist to understand
that if any of these got into the food chain the consequences would be truly terrible[26].
Genetic pollution took place
in Mexico in 2001. Researchers found that
despite the ban that was imposed by the Mexican government on Bt corn genetically
engineered maize contaminated local maize. Scientists are worried about this development
as Mexico is the home of maize and acts as the gene bank for one of the world's
staple crops. There are hundreds of varieties of maize in
Mexico. The original report by two scientists from the University of California
at Berkeley, Ignacio Chapela and David Quist was carried in the November 2001
issue of the journal Nature. The March 2002 edition of Nature disowned
the research. However in April 2002 the executive director of Mexico's National
Commission on Biodiversity, Jorge Soberon shown that government tests had confirmed
that the scale of the contamination was much worse than originally believed. A
total of 1,876 seeds from two states Oaxaca and Puebla were examined and Mexican
scientists found evidence of contamination at 95 percent of the sites.
It is believed that grain that
was meant for tortilla production was planted by Mexican farmers who were unaware
that the corn was genetically engineered. Mexican scientists are convinced that
the seeds came from either Monsanto, Aventis or Syngenta as all three use the
cauliflower mosaic virus as a promoter. However, Mexican scientists could not
find out which of the companies were involved. The companies claimed commercial
secrecy and refused to tell the Mexican authorities the relevant genetic information.
Jorge Soberon is quoted in The Guardian (April 19, 2002); "I find
it extremely difficult to accept this (the behaviour of the companies). "How
can you monitor what is going on if they do not allow you the information to do
it?"[27]. Leaving aside the genetic disaster in this
incident the arrogance of the wealthy transnational corporation involved is mind-boggling.
These companies are so powerful financially and politically that they feel
no moral obligation to share their knowledge with officials of a sovereign government
in order to track and prevent a worse ecological disaster.
It is also very worrying that
the editor of the prestigious magazine Nature “sided with a vociferous minority in obfuscating the reality of the contamination
of one of the world’s main crops with transgenic
DNA of industrial origin”. In a letter to The Guardian (May24, 2002) the researcher in question, Ignacio
H Chapela wonders, why the editor took such a course of action? He surmises, “Perhaps the key lies in his tacit acknowledgment, albeit by dismissal,
of the enormous pressures on anyone working in or around the biological sciences
ever since we were set on a collision course with commercial interests”. He
went on to sound a very chilling note, “The coordinated attempt to discredit our discoveries in the public piazza
sends a chilling message to those who would dare ask important but uncomfortable
questions an find their truthful answer. It is an assault on the very foundations of
science”
According to the Mexican journalis Tania Molina Ramirez Nature
refused to publish another report commissioned by the Mexican government to that
confirmed the original contamination in October 2002[28].
Herbicide Resistant
A second major environmental
concern is the increased use of herbicides. Over half of the crops currently under
development are being engineered for herbicide resistance, permitting increased
use of these harmful chemicals. The permission
granted by the EPA in Ireland to Monsanto Ireland Ltd, to conduct field trial
sugar beet that has been genetically engineered to be resistant to the herbicide
Roundup in Ireland in 1998, raised questions about the nature of these herbicides
and their increased use.
The company claims that even
after long-term application there is no effect on the environment. It is marketed as an environmentally-friendly
herbicide. Monsanto also claims that the use of Roundup ready seeds will lead
to a decrease in the use of herbicides. Such claims need to be thoroughly scrutinized.
Roundup is a broad spectrum non-selective herbicide which kills all plants,
including grasses, broadleafs and woody plants. The active agent in Round-up,
glyphosate is an organophosphate. Unlike
other organophosphates it does not affect the nervous system of animals. But that does not make it environmentally friendly.
Critics of Monsanto point out
that it is very difficult to measure glyphosate residue in the environment. Only a few laboratories have the sophisticated
equipment and the necessary expertise. This means that data is often lacking on
residue levels in food and in the environment and existing data may not be fully
reliable.
While the acute toxicity of
glyphosate for mammals is very low, it can interfere with some enzyme functions
in animals. In California glyphosate is the third most commonly reported cause
of pesticide related illness among agricultural workers. Glyphosate causes damage
to the environment. Many species of wild
plants are damaged or killed by applications of less than 10 micrograms per plant.
These plants are particularly vulnerable when it is spread from the air.
Fish and invertebrates are also very sensitive to formulations of glyphosate
as are beneficial insects like lacewings and ladybugs.
More recent studies have shown
that the problems with Round-up stem not so much from the glyphosate but rather
from the unlabelled "inert" ingredients that aim to make the herbicide
more efficient. According to Joseph Mendelson,
"Round-up consists of 99.04 per cent 'inert' ingredients, many of which have
been identified, including polyethoxylated tallowamine surfactant (known as POEA),
related organic acids of flyphosate, isopropylamine, and water. Researchers have
found that the acute lethal dose of POEA is less than one-third that of glyphosate
alone. Studies by Japanese researchers on poisoning victims discovered that this
'inert' ingredient caused acute toxicity in patients[29].
There is also evidence that
plants that are grown in the presence of weed-killers can suffer from stress.
They react by producing or failing to produce certain proteins or substances.
Members of the bean family produce higher levels of plant-oestrogens (phyto-oestogens)
when grown in the presence of glyphosate. Excessive levels of these oestrogens present
a risk to unborn babies and to children. These
plant-oestrogens mimic the role of hormones in the human body.
They can be particularly disruptive of the human reproductive system, especially
for young males.
There is also good reason to
be skeptical about claims that genetically engineered plants will lead to fewer
chemicals in agriculture. In soybean cultivation Monsanto maintained, in documents
prepared for the US authorities, that it now takes between one and five applications
of different herbicides to control weeds. With Round-up only one or, possibly, two applications
will be needed. Yet in their advice to
farmers in Argentina, Monsanto recommended that Round-up be used with Round-up
Ready soybeans before sowing, when the plants are young, after three or four leaves
have appeared and whenever the farmer finds weeds.
This is quite a different scenario[30].
Something similar has happened with AgrEvo's genetically engineered
oilseed rape that is resistant to the herbicide glufosinate which is destined to be planted in Europe in 1999. The
company has increased the production facilities for glufosinate in the US and Germany and expects sales to increase in
the next five to seven years. In fact it is alleged that the reason that AgrEvo
has entered into the GE market is to boost its herbicide sales [31].
In January 1997 Monsanto agreed
to change its advertising for glyphosate-based products, including Round-up, in
response to complaints by the New York Attorney General's office that the ads
were misleading. As part of the agreement,
Monsanto will not use the term 'biodegradable' or 'environmentally friendly' in
its advertisements for glyphosate-based products in New York State. They also
agreed to pay $50,000 towards the State's cost for pursuing the case. Monsanto
claims it did not violate any federal, state or local law and that its claims
were "true and not misleading in any way". The company states that it
entered into the agreement for settlement purposes only in order to avoid costly
litigation [32].
In November 1997 the Dutch Advertisement Code Committee (ACC) found that Monsanto’s
advertisements for Round-Up were misleading. The ACC judged
that Monsanto’s herbicide is not biologically degradable and that their ECO claim
is in conflict with the truth.
Companies like Monsanto claim
that by producing crops that are resistant to herbicides they will reduce the
amount of harmful chemicals entering the environment. They fail to inform the public that it is also
a very cost effective operation for the company. At present it costs between $40 and $100 million to bring a new
pesticide through the regulatory process to the farmers fields. It only takes $1 million to develop a new plant
variety. Pat Mooney believes that, "economics
dictate that chemical companies invent new crop varieties adaptable to the company's
chemicals rather than adapt expensive pesticides to the inexpensive seeds"
[33].
Problems for Biodiversity
We have already
seen how agribusiness has contributed to the huge loss of biodiversity in the
world in recent years because it opts for monoculture hybrid seeds. Genetic engineering
will exacerbate the threat to biodiversity. The UK Advisory Committee on Releases
to the Environment is concerned that when crops which are genetically engineered
to be resistant to herbicides become common they will have a devastating impact
on wildlife. Fields of genetically engineered crops could lead to starvation for
birds and insects that depend on these seeds as a source of food.
The committee's chairman, John Beringer, Professor of Molecular Genetics
at Bristol University, said that, "It could be cranking up the pressure on
species if this technology proceeds to the limits" [34].
Vandana Shiva,
an Indian scientist who works in the area of biodiversity, claims that genetic
engineering even at present is working against crop diversity and narrowing the
genetic base of agriculture to only a few crops. In 1998 two commercially staple crops were
being genetically engineered - soya and maze.
These two crops are now destined to take the place of hundreds of legumes,
beans and cereals like millet, wheat and rice. She goes on to point out that genetically
engineered crops are based on expanding monocultures of the same variety evolved
for a single function. Bill Crowe points out that these large companies develop
only a few varieties of any seed which are developed for machine handling. These
demand that the ear of the grain is of a consistent size and texture. They invariably
require high nutrient inputs and petrochemical herbicides that wipe out everything
else and leave nothing for other species like birds.
As the biotechnology industry takes root in different countries this monoculture
tendency will continue, further undermining agricultural biodiversity and, thereby
creating ecological vulnerability.
Threatens Traditional Insecticides
Many insects contain genes
that render them susceptible to pesticides. Often these susceptible genes predominate
in natural populations of insects. These genes are a valuable natural resource
because they allow pesticides to remain as effective pest-control tools. The more
benign the pesticide, the more valuable the genes that make pests susceptible
to it.
Certain genetically engineered
crops threaten the continued susceptibility of pests to one of nature's most valuable
pesticides: the Bacillus thuringiensis
or Bt toxin. These Bt crops are genetically engineered to contain a gene for the
Bt toxin. Because the crops produce the toxin in most plant tissues throughout
the life cycle of the plant, pests are constantly exposed to it. This continuous
exposure in time will render the Bt pesticide useless, unless specific measures
are instituted to avoid the development of such resistance. In fact in both laboratory
and field situations a number of species, including the Colorado potato beetle
have developed a resistance to the Bt. toxin.
In 1996 Monsanto's Nu Corn which contained the Bt toxin failed to perform
as expected due to hot weather and drought conditions.
Even in field tests the genetically engineered gene killed only 80 percent
of the bowl-worms that attack cotton. The fact that 20 percent survived means
that a "super bug" resistant to Bt will almost inevitable emerge.
The secrecy
surrounding genetic engineering and the commercial pressure which giant corporations
can bring to bear on governments is illustrated by the fact that an EU study which
showed that genetically engineered crops would add high costs for all farmers
and threaten organic farmers was kept under raps. The study undertaken by the
Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, of the EU Joint Research Centre,
addressed the question whether it would be possible to have GE and non-GE agriculture
coexisting together. It found that the cost would be prohibitive and would place
particular burdens on organic farmers. The
most worrying aspect of this saga is that the study was delivered to the EU Commission
in January 2002 with the recommendation that it not be made public. Luckily it did reach the public when someone leaked the document
to Greenpeace in May 2002.
It is ironic that groups like Friends of the Earth are now providing
the public with data on the safety of their food and not individual governments.
Most governments have promoted the agribusiness’s GMO campaigns vigorously.
The corporations do not want people to be told what the genetic sources
of their food is. In March 2002 a ruling by a quango of the Food
and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) called the Codex Alimentarius stated that
“governments cannot demand that consumers be told their food’s genetic origins
- whether a cooking oil comes from beans that are genetically engineered.
The only exception is when a food turns out to be dangerous by causing
allergies or other reactions[35]. The committee did not seem to realise that
post-factum traceability is almost impossible.
Given all the chemical elements now in the food chain, the corporations
could easily point the finger at one of these instead of at their own products.
This is another example of governments caving in to corporate demands even
when a threat to human health is a possibility.
Poisoning Nature