Pros and Cons of GE Food

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].

Terminator Gene

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].

Genetic Engineering promoted by Spin

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".

GE Foods Pose a Danger to Human Health and the Environment

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

The addition of foreign genes to plants could also have serious consequences for wildlife in a number of circumstances. For example, engineering crop plants, such as tobacco or rice, to produce plastics or pharmaceuticals could endanger mice or deer who consume crop debris left in the fields after harvesting. Fish that have been engineered to contain metal-sequestering proteins (such fish have been suggested as living pollution clean-up devices) could be harmful if consumed by other fish or raccoons.

Creating New, More Virulent Viruses

One of the most common applications of genetic engineering is the production of virus-tolerant crops. Such crops are produced by engineering components of viruses into the plant genomes. For reasons not well understood, plants producing viral components on their own are resistant to subsequent infection by those viruses. Such plants, however, pose other risks of creating new or worse viruses through recombination.

Recombination can occur between the plant-produced viral genes and closely related genes of incoming viruses. Such recombination may produce viruses that can infect a wider range of hosts or that may be more virulent than the parent viruses.

In the late 1980s the National Institute of Allergy in the US sought an animal model suitable for studying AIDs. Researchers introduced the AIDs virus into mice. Critics of the experiment feared that if the AIDs infected mice escaped this could create a new and even more deadly source of AIDs infection. Those conducting the experiment dismissed such fear as unfounded and alarmist. A study conducted by Dr. Robert Gallo, one of the co-discoverers of the AIDs virus, and subsequently published in the magazine Science, cautioned against using animal research models. He and his colleagues argued that the AIDs virus carried by the experimental mice might combine with other viruses that are carried by mice. This could result in the creation of a new more virulent form of AIDs that could be transmitted in novel ways, even through the air[36].

Genetically Engineered Crops Could Devastate Third World Agriculture

On the social level there is the concern that genetically engineered crops will displace crops grown naturally by farmers in Third World countries and in the process disrupt the lives of millions of poor people. In the US two biotechnology companies have produced vanilla from plant cell cultures in laboratories. The price of naturally produced vanilla is about $1,200 per pound. The biotechnology companies estimate that they can commercially produce genetically engineered vanilla for about $50 per pound. Such a development would wipe out the livelihood of about 100,000 farmers in Third World countries.

Developments like these could constitute an economic disaster for many Southern countries where biodiversity is already under severe strain. Similar research is under way to genetically engineer crops that are crucial to Third World economies. These include coffee, tobacco, cocoa, coconut, palm oil, sugar and ginseng. Genetically engineered varieties may thrive in temperate zones and thus ravage many Third World economies that are dependent on one or other of these commodities. These countries have no fall-back industries capable of absorbing their redundant farmers. From my many years in the Philippines I know that the lives of millions of copra farmers would be devastated if coconut oil was produced in temperate zones.

Unforeseen Problems

As with human health risks, it is unlikely that all the potential risks to the environment have been identified. At this point, biology and ecology are too poorly understood to be certain that scientists can comprehensively rule out any major and irreversible damage to the environment. Therefore we ought proceed with extreme caution. This point was made forcibly by Robin Grove-White, Director of the Study of Environmental Change, Lancaster University, in a letter to the Independent (June 14, 1998) in the wake of Prince Charles article on genetic engineering which appeared in the Daily Telegraph (June 8, 1998) the previous week. Mr. Grove-White wrote that, "Last year, in a study sponsored, to its credit, by Unilever (itself a potential beneficiary of the technology), we found that the panoply of ministerial advisory committees and other regulatory mechanisms is failing utterly to engage with issues of central significance to most people - particularly, the unknowns surrounding future cumulative dependency on genetically engineered crops and foods, with the risks of unforeseen (because unforeseeable in terms of current scientific understanding) synergies and ecological or public health mishaps".

Concerns about gene pollution and the medical consequences of an accident are beginning to appear in modern fiction. In the novel Carriers Patrick Lynch makes a very plausible case for a disaster can follow from a genetic engineering experiment that went horribly wrong even though no on could imagine what the consequences of the gene therapy could be at the time.

Argentina 2002

If the proof of the pudding is in the eating it is worth assessing the impact of GE soya on Argentina. Monsanto brought the technology to Argentina in 1996. About 90 percent of the soya farmers opted for GE soya. As a result Argentina's soya crop has doubled to 27 million tons. That might seems good news but the social and environmental costs have been high. The growth in soya output has not come from higher yields from GE soya but from more land devoted to soya. In fact GE soya has had a five or six per cent lower yield than conventional soya. The promised reduction in herbicide use has not materialized. If fact many farmers are using two to three times more herbicide than they used with the traditional crop. It is estimated that costs have risen by about 14 per cent but since overproduction has caused the price to drop the farmers are actually poorer.

The one efficiency that GE soya has brought is very worrying ecologically. Everyone will admit that the agricultural practices around cultivating GE soya saved time for the GE soya farmers since they do not have to perform the traditional tasks of ploughing and harrowing. What they do is to drench the land with herbicide (Round-up Ready) and then sow the soya seed directly on the land. This facilitates larger holdings which in turn have put small farmers out of business. This has a devastating impact for the countryside and small market towns that depend for their livelihood on a thriving agricultural sector. Many people have been forced off the land and have migrated to cities where they now live in squalor in slums.

Ecologically it is even worse. Forests are being cleared to plant more GE soya to compensate for the fall in prices. At the moment farmers are spreading 80 million litres of herbicide on 10 million hectares under GE soya. The chemicals kill everything except the GE soya. This is affecting the human quality of the soil which no longer can retain moisture. Traditionally farmers grew soya in the summer and wheat in the winter. But now this rotation no longer happens, it is all soya. This is not sustainable in the long term. No wonder that recently one of Argentina's leading agronomists, Jorge Eduardo Fuli stated that, "our brief history of submission to the world bio-technology giants has been so disastrous that we fervently hope other Latin American nations will take it as a example of what not to do"[37].