Ethics and Genetic Engineering

As we have seen genetic engineering is a new and powerful technology. It gives enormous power to commercial organisations like Transnational Corporations (TNCs) to transform, not just human life, but life itself.

In discussing the ethics of genetic engineering it is essential to develop an appropriate ethical framework for this new and powerful technology which can literally transform not just human life but life itself. This will demand a major shift away from the almost exclusively human or homocentric focus that has been so pervasive in the Western ethics and the wider cultural traditions for almost two thousand years.

Western Ethical tradition human-centred

Aristotle, whose impact on Western thought is enormous, held that since,"nature makes nothing without some end in view, nothing to no purpose, it must be that nature has made (animals and plants) for the sake of man" 1. This idea, that animals and plants are created for humankind - either by God or the processes of nature - has dominated Western attitudes to animals, plants and the rest of creation for many centuries.

From this viewpoint, since animals and plants exist for human beings, our behaviour towards them is not governed by moral considerations. It is only in the past decade that the cruelty involved in factory farming or blood sports has been discussed from an ethical perspective. Even then, the proscription on cruelty towards animals arises, not so much from inherent rights that animals might have, but from the understanding that any form of cruelty is unbecoming and, therefore, unethical for rational beings.

The Christian tradition supported human-centred ethics

It is also true that certain elements within the Judeo-Christian tradition have strongly reinforced the Aristotelian legacy. This is true when one considers the traditional interpretation given to Gen 1: 26-28. "Increase and multiply and dominate the Earth". The text is often interpreted, mistakenly according to contemporary scripture scholars, as giving humans a license to dominate the Earth and to do whatever they wish with animals and plants.

The historian, Keith Thomas, points out that at the beginning of the 16th century, just as modern science was finding its feet, neither Western literature nor the theological tradition ascribed any intrinsic meaning to the natural world or accorded it any rights apart from its role in serving humankind [1]. From the theological perspective it was argued that humans had intrinsic value because they were made in the "image and likeness of God"( Gen 1: 26). Their role was to be "masters of the fish of the sea, the birds of heaven and all living animals on the earth" (Gen 1: 28). No other creature bore this Imago Dei stamp. Animals and plants were viewed as lacking rational faculties, self-consciousness and often even sentience and hence had no intrinsic worth in themselves. They only had instrumental value. Their role was to serve the needs of humankind for the necessities of life and they could also be used for entertainment.

Even though the Catholic Church has attempted to develop a creation theology in recent years and in some pronouncements, has begun to accept that other species have intrinsic value, many church people still work out of an anthropocentric perspective. Speaking at a conference on biotechnology in October 2002 Bishop Elio Sgreccia, vice president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, said, "There are no impediments to animal and vegetable biotechnologies." The latter "can be justified with the motive that they are for the good of man. God has conceived animals and vegetables as good creatures for man's needs," the bishop added. He did add an unspecified caution when he stated that God has also given "man the task and responsibility to govern creation," which implies a grave responsibility…therefore, "the use of plants and animals is legitimate, but it does not represent an absolute right. The Church has an open but conditioned position," he added. "For this reason, we ask for sales to be accompanied by a label [mentioning GMOs] and their total availability for developing countries, in keeping with criteria of solidarity and justice"[2].

The bishop focused completely on the impact of this new technology on humankind even when he championed labelling and equity for hungry people in the Third World. The rights of other species not to be subjected to cruel experimentation or to have their genetic integrity, particularly at the species level, respected by human beings is not even raised.

It is true that within the Judeo-Christian tradition there is a strand that sees humans as stewards of creation ( Gen 2: 15). Unfortunately, as Clive Ponting points out in his Green History of the World, "although the idea that humans have a responsibility to preserve the natural world of which they are merely guardians can be traced through a succession of thinkers it has remained a minority tradition" [3]. Unfortunately, St. Francis's kinship with brother Sun, Sister Moon and all creation was very much a minority position. His fraternal attitude did not inform the Western approach to nature. In fact it did not even survive in any effective way within the congregation which he founded.

The Scientific Revolution Widened the Chasm between humanity and the rest of creation

The gulf between humans and the rest of creation was widened further by the insights of many of the people who have shaped our modern scientific, economic and social world. In this very formative period in human-earth relations when the foundations of the modern scientific and industrial society was being shaped in the works of people like Francis Bacon (1561-1626), Rene Descartes (1596-1650) and Isaac Newton (1642-1727) all rights were ascribed to humans. In the words of Descartes the goal of human knowledge and technology was so that humans might become "the masters and possessors of nature"[4]. Furthermore, philosophers like Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jeremy Bentham dismissed the medieval view of the cosmos as organic and substituted instead a mechanistic view of nature and its law. For these men the best way to understand the Cosmos was to see it as a giant clock. Newton believed that the laws of motion, which he discovered proved that the same "universal laws that governed the smallest portable watch also governed the movements of the earth, the sun and the planets"[5].

For Descartes animals were, res extensa, little more than mechanised entities without any interior quality or soul. Only res cogitans or humans, as conscious beings, were endowed with souls and therefore could be considered to have moral value. Animals had no such intrinsic value and could be treated in any way that might serve human ends no matter how cruel and degrading that might be. Moreover, these men of the Enlightenment viewed science, and its handmaiden technology, as a tool designed to give humans the power to dominate and manipulate the earth in whatever way they saw fit in order to promote human well-being and betterment.

Genetic engineering fits comfortably into this mechanistic worldview. Scientists, working in the field of genetics and biotechnology, discovered the insights and technology which people like Francis Bacon dreamed about in his book, New Atlantis (1627) published after he died. This new technology gives humans the capability to manipulate the building blocks of life in order to reshape the natural world in a most extraordinary way. Most of the questions surrounding genetic engineering deal with whether it will be damaging to human health or the environment. In general the wider ethical questions are often simply ignored.

A Hierarchy of Moral Questions Surrounding Genetic Engineering

The fundamental question is whether genetic engineering respects the intrinsic rights of other creatures? Having explored that question one might then move on to some of the other ethical questions associated with the technology. Whether the risks to the environment and human health from genetic engineering are serious enough to warrant a moratorium on deliberate release of genetically modified organisms at this time? Within the context of the human community one might ask whether genetic engineering will further widen the gap between rich and poor in our contemporary world? The push to patent genetically engineered organisms raises the basic ethical question: Is it proper to patent or claim ownership over living organisms? Will genetic engineering respect the rights of Third World people who have promoted biodiversity over thousands of years? or will it facilitate biopiracy?

Professor David Suzuki who has worked in genetics since 1961 smiles when he reflects on how the certainties that he held in the 1960s have all vanished. He writes "today when I tell students the hottest ideas we had in 1961 about chromosome structure and genetic regulations, they gasp and laugh in disbelief. In 1997, most of the best ideas of 1961 can be seen for what they are - wrong, irrelevant or unimportant...... So what is our hurry in biotechnology to patent ideas and rush products to market when the chances are overwhelmingly that their theoretical rationale will be wrong?" [6]. Closer to home another well-known environmentalist, David Bellamy acknowledges that "genetically modified products worry him" [7].

This is not an argument for stopping laboratory based research in this area, but it does put a substantial burden on those who wish to engage in deliberate releases to demonstrate the safety of their products and the benefits that they will bring. Furthermore, if something does go wrong, it will be impossible to recall the organisms that are multiplying in the environment. It is not like a batch of malfunctioning cars that can be repaired and returned to the owner. Genetic engineering deals with organisms that produce, mutate and interact with other organisms in the environment.

An Eco-centred Moral Framework

Before looking at suitable moral frameworks for dealing assessing the moral rightness or wrongness of genetic engineering it might be worthwhile to consider what has happened to the north Atlantic salmon. A report published in 1997, commissioned by the Marine Institute of Ireland, discusses The nature and current status of Transgenetic Atlantic Salmon. The document states that as a result of introducing growth hormone genes into a wild North Atlantic salmon the transgenetic fish grows rapidly and reaches enormous size. Studies show that within a period of 14 months the transgenetic salmon can weigh 37 times more than the ordinary salmon. These increases will probably make enormous profits for the company producing the salmon. The cost to the salmon is horrendous. In its technical and unemotive language the report notes that the experiment produces "profound morphological abnormalities" in the progeny of the transgenetic salmon "These included a "disproportionate growth of the head and operculum cartilage, disimproving appearance and leading ultimately to respiratory problems" [8]. The report never raises the basic question: Do humans have the right to interfere with the genetic integrity of this species of fish?

At this very moment experiments are also being carried out on many other animals in an effort to improve livestock or develop cheap ways of producing drugs. Animal rights groups like Compassion in World Farming are rightly concerned about the suffering which genetic engineering techniques inflict on animals. Today the technology is so imprecise since the expression of the gene depends on the promoters, enhancers and silencer genes. As a result all kinds of abnormalities have occurred including loss of limbs and brain defects. In many situations the transgenetic animal does not pass on the desired gene to its offspring so repeated experiments are necessary in order to develop the desired line for breeding purposes. In reflecting on the potential for increasing animal suffering and creating abnormal creatures Jeremy Rifkin concludes that "The larger lesson is that the complex and multiple interactions between the inserted trangene and the chemical activity of the host animal are, for the most part, unknowable and unpredictable and can result in all sorts of novel and even bizarre pathologies in the creature" [9]. An ethical assessment of genetic engineering or cloning needs to ask the following question: Should we as one species among millions of others be engaging in such intrusive experiments changing the genetic integrity of other species? What human need would justify such intervention? Would the desire to produce an animal with profitable economic traits like increased growth performance, leaner meat and greater weight justify the operation?

As I have indicated already I believe that our anthropocentric Western scientific values and ethical norms are not capable of addressing these vital contemporary moral issues in any comprehensive or effective way. Even the "minimum ethical consensus" proposed by the theologian Hans Kung appears to be mainly human-centred. It includes the fundamental right to life (human), just treatment from the State and physical and mental integrity. The consensus is geared to creating "the smallest possible basis for human living and acting together [10].

How humans might relate to other species is not on this ethical landscape. Yet that is a matter of life and death for many species, possibly, even the human species. Kung provides a hint at how we might attempt to construct an adequate ethical framework for contemporary problems like genetic engineering. He suggests that a global ethic be "related to reality". While accepting this position I think it should be broadened by attempting to situate the human story within the large story of the earth.

In this view a satisfactory ethical framework must be based on our contemporary understanding of the relationship between humans and the rest of the natural world, not on the mechanistic world of Newton or Descartes. In the scientific world of the 1980s and 1990s the mechanistic view has being challenged by physicists and biologists. John Polkinghorne, a theologian and former professor of theoretical physics at Queen's College, Cambridge insists that the, "world is no mere mechanism. It has a flexibility a suppleness within its process, a freedom for the whole universe to be itself, a freedom for us to act within that universe of which we are a part" [11]. Our evolutionary history makes it very clear that humans are not disconnected from the rest of nature. Rather we are an integral part of the community of living beings and non-living reality.

Humankind evolved with other creatures during the past few million years and we are dependent on plants and animals for our survival. The well-being of the human species depends on the well-being of the whole fabric of nature. If we damage that in an irreversible way, we damage ourselves. So even from the perspective of enlightened self-interest we ought to respect the community of living beings as well as the air, water and soils of the earth to ensure our own future.

Much of the moral debate in this area concentrates on the impact of genetic engineering on human beings[12]. It focuses on whether it will benefit or damage human health. One seldom finds the more fundamental moral questions addressed. For example: Do human beings, as one relatively young species in the community of the living, have the right to interfere in such an intrusive way by introducing exogenous DNA into the genome of another species? Genetic engineering techniques make it possible to alter in a significant way the genetic integrity of any species, be it a bacterium, plant or animal. But is it ethically right to do this particularly if the modification is harmful to the animal like the case of the transgenetic salmon?

Viewed through an exclusively anthropocentric moral framework the answer to the may well be, yes. Charles McCarthy, an ethicist with the Kennedy Institute for Bioethics at Georgetown University in Washington D.C., writes that " In a utilitarian context, efficiency in food production and ability to compete for world markets stand as high values which must be weighed against our recognised obligations to provide for the interests of the animals" [13]. In general the human-centred argument usually wins out.

As I have stated earlier the moral framework, which we inherited from the Greek and Roman culture and a segment of the Judeo-Christian tradition, is not in itself adequate for assessing the ethics of a complex issue like genetically engineering other creatures. The attempt to widen the moral universe beyond the human domain to include the rights of other species has been underway on the margins of ethical studies for a number of decades.

Eco-centred Ethics

Aldo Leopold, an American ecologist, writing as far back as 1949, tried to work out an eco-centred land ethic. He insisted that no progress could be made towards shaping such an ethic until the concept of land is expanded beyond legal and economic domain. According to Leopold, looked at ecologically and ethically, land is a community which includes "soils, waters, plants, and animals, or collectively: the land" [14].

Leopold acknowledged that an ethic that might take the above seriously does not preclude using them for human sustenance and welfare. It does however mean that they have a right to continue in existence in some way in their natural state. Leopold formulated his eco-centred principle as follows: " A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise"[15].

Deep Ecology

Those associated with the Deep Ecology movement would go further than Leopold in framing ethical norms that regulate human interaction with the rest of nature. Their focus is often called the ecocentric or biocentric approach because they argue that ethics should be concerned about the impact of a human behaviour on ecosystems, like rivers and even on the biosphere as a whole, as in the case of global warming. For Deep ecologists ecocentrism is both an ethical imperative and also a programme for political action. They insist that "all things in the biosphere have an equal right to live and blossom and to reach their individual forms of unfolding and self-realisation with the larger Self-Realisation " [16].

There is no way that Deep Ecology advocates like the Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess, would countenance the kind of experiments carried out on the pigs or the salmon as described above ....... Deep Ecology, values non-human life independently of its usefulness to human beings. It is particularly keen on promoting social and ecological policies which involve "non-interference with continuing evolution".

Whilst I might distance myself from some positions espoused by deep ecology, especially those which fail to acknowledge any unique place for human beings in the community of the living, I think that their insistence on the rights of other creatures and the integrity of the ecosystem as a whole must now become the context within which the ethical dimension of biotechnology ought to be discussed. For example, biotechnologists are now able to eliminate the brooding instinct in turkeys blocking the gene that produces the prolactin hormone. Non-brooding turkeys are more productive than brooding birds, but is it right to engineer animals in a way that destroys their mothering instinct?

My own position is close to that of Fr. Thomas Berry, an American priest who discusses ecological issues from a cosmological, ethical and religious perspective. He writes that contemporary ethics must focus its concerns on the larger community of the living. He argues that the human community is subordinate to the ecological community. The ecological imperative is not derivative from human ethics. Human ethics is derived from the ecological imperative.

The basic ethical norm is the well-being of the comprehensive community, not the well-being of the human community. The earth is a single ethical system, as the universe is a single ethical system [17]. This is the first principle of an ecological ethic.

Such an ethic would demand a legal framework where the rights of the geological and biological as well as the human component or the earth community are articulated and protected. Obviously the rights that we must accord to humans and the rights that we ought to grant to other creatures and entire ecosystems are not the same. The important thing is we need to begin to realize that the rest of the world is not simply there for human use or abuse.

Even moral theologians who work within the narrower moral paradigm of the Judeo-Christian tradition are beginning to insist on the intrinsic value of other creatures. Traditionally animals and plants were considered to have value merely because they are perceived to be useful to human beings, rather than because they possess intrinsic worth in themselves. Starting from the position that other creatures do have intrinsic value, Professor James A. Nash would be very skeptical about the morality of genetically engineering other creatures. He writes that, since in the Christian tradition other species are deemed to have intrinsic value, the creation of transgenetic species should, "not be the norm but the rare exception on which the burden of proof rests. The genetic reconstruction of some species may be justified for compelling human needs in medicine, agriculture or ecological repairs (e.g. oil eating microbes), so long as it can be reasonably tested and verified that tolerable alternatives are not available, genetic diversity is not compromised and ecosystemic integrity is not endangered"[18].

In the light of this principle it would be impossible to justify the experiment on the genetically engineered salmon and other animals that are being vigorously promoted by the biotechnology industry today. The distress caused to the animals involved and the right which animals have to preserve their own genetic integrity ought to act as a prohibition against such experiments until there is a much more extensive debate on the issue among the public. From an ethical perspective the nub of the issue revolves around whether other creatures have "intrinsic" value or not. If they do then it seems logical to argue that they have rights that their own 'specialness' especially the species boundary be respected by another creature. If they do not and are merely objects then, of course, there is no ethical imperative to respect their species uniqueness. Human can exploit them for any purpose whatever. In the present global commercial climate such exploitation will be driven by what is considered useful, profitable and acceptable for humans.

Following on from an eco-centred approach one can then access the activity in terms of its impact on humans and the environment. The question is does genetic engineering poses such a threat to human health and the environment that the deliberate release of genetically engineered organisms should not be allowed at this point in time?

The Precautionary Principle

Given all the above factors, the ethical problems and the risk to human health and the environment the approach to deliberately releasing genetically engineered organisms into the environment ought to be governed by the precautionary principle.

In January 1998 a group of activists, scholars, scientists and lawyers met at Wingspread, home of the Johnson Foundation in Racine, Wisconsin to discuss the precautionary principle. The group was convened by the Science and Environmental Health Network (SEHN). The Wingspread definition of precaution contained three important elements, namely the threat of harm, scientific uncertainty and preventative, precautionary action. The Wingspread statement on the precautionary principle read as follows "when an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context the proponent of an activity rather than the opponents should bear the burden of proof. The process of applying the precautionary principle must be open, informed and democratic and must include potentially affected parties. It must also involve an examination of the full range of alternatives, including no action at all"

Take for example the experiments at Newcastle University in Britain. Ruminant animals, like cattle, produce enzymes in their gut that break down cellulose plants into basic sugar components which are then assimilated by the animal. Now scientists are experimenting with introducing cellulose genes directly into non-ruminant animals, like pigs and chickens. Their aim is to produce the "grazing" pig. Whether this would be good for the pigs, given that the rest of their physiology does not suit grazing behaviour, or for the soil structure, is not at all clear. The presumption based on present knowledge, is that it would not, and therefore the precautionary principle ought to be invoked.

Introducing genetically engineered organism into the environment is very different from introducing other technological inventions. If a chemical and mechanical invention proves dangerous it can be recalled or eliminated. This is not so with genetically engineered organisms. Even if only one percent of these organisms wreaks havoc on the environment the consequences could be significant and irreversible because the organism will continue to reproduce and thrive. Even before the advent of genetic engineering exotic species that have been introduced into an ecosystem have wiped out indigenous species and interfered with the complex web of relationships that exist between organisms in a complex environment.

Because the dangers are so great the Council for Responsible Genetics in the United States believes that the time has come for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to re-evaluate its position on genetically engineered foods, and for citizens to demand a consumer-centred regulatory policy. The essential elements in such a policy ought to include;

· adequate and independent testing.

· proper and complete registration of genetically engineered foods

· segregation at source of genetically modified crops.

· clear and informative labelling.

Testing

Testing is crucial. Unless you look for something you will not find it. Industry and government spokespersons have been assuring the public that genetically engineered organism are safe. They fail to inform the public that the testing regime is woefully inadequate and often works from quite contradictory positions.

An article in the New York Times (October 25, 1998) entitled, "Playing God in the Garden" by Michael Pollan illustrates how unsatisfactory the present regulatory regime is. Pollan reminds his readers that they may be eating genetically engineered soya, corn or potatoes without knowing it. Even though genetically engineered foods have been on the market for four years in the US the regulatory agency for food the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not require genetically engineered food be labelled as such.

Today people who eat any potatoes in the U.S. cannot be sure that they are not genetically engineered. The author goes on to point out that one of these genetically engineered potatoes Monsanto's New Leaf Superior potato is, itself, registered as a pesticide with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This potato has been genetically engineered to poison and kill the Colorado potato beetle. Every cell of Monsanto's New Leaf Superior contains a gene from the Bacillus Thuriengensis bacteria ( Bt.) which is highly toxic to Colorado potato beetles. This is why this potato is registered as a pesticide.

While the FDA has responsibility for licencing food the U.S. EPA has responsibility for licensing new pesticides. According to Pollan the EPA pesticide officials believe that the New Leaf Superior potato is reasonably safe for humans. In an experiment EPA scientists fed pure Bt to mice without causing them harm. Because humans have eaten old-style New Leaf potatoes for a long time, and because mice are not visibly harmed by eating pure Bt, the EPA concluded that potatoes containing Bt genes are be safe for humans.

The New York Times reported that "some geneticists believe this reasoning is flawed" because, as we have seen earlier in this essay, inserting foreign genes into plants may cause subtle changes that are difficult to recognize.

When the consumer goes to the supermarket to buy a bag of Monsanto's New Leaf Superior potatoes she/he will find a list of all the nutrients and micro-nutrients in the potato. He/she will not learn that the potato has been genetically engineered or that it is legally a pesticide. The reason for this anomaly is a bureaucratic bungle with two agencies responsible for human and environmental welfare do not communicate with each other. As we will see the consumer suffers.

Food labelling is ordinarily the responsibility of FDA. An FDA official told the New York Times that FDA does not regulate Monsanto's potato because FDA does not have the authority to regulate pesticides. According to them that is EPA's job. The farces deepens when one realizes that an EPA-approved pesticides will normally carry an EPA approved warning label. For example, a label on a bottle of Bt will warn the user not to inhale the substance or allow it to come in contact with an open wound.

However, in the case of Monsanto's genetically engineered potato, with the Bt gene, the EPA insists that it is the responsibility of the FDA to label the item since the potato is a food and therefore comes under the remit of the FDA. However, an FDA spokesperson told the New York Times that it only requires genetically-engineered foods to be labeled if they contain allergens or have been "materially changed". In the case of the genetically engineered potato the FDA has determined that Monsanto did not "materially change" the New Leaf potato by turning it into a pesticide. Therefore no FDA label is required.

Furthermore, the law that empowers the FDA (the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act) forbids FDA from including any information about pesticides on food labels. Pesticide labels are EPA's responsibility, says the FDA, which brings us right back to where we started. While two agencies quibble about who has responsibility for what, the consumer is faced with consuming food that is potentially harmful. Neither Agency will guarantee the safety of staple foods.

The corporation that produced the potato does not feel that food safety is its responsibility either. A Monsanto official told the The New York Times that the corporation should not have to take responsibility for the safety of its food products. "Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe for the safety of biotech food," said Phil Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications. "Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA's job," Angell said.

Apart from important decisions falling between various agencies it is also true that government agencies are very much under-resources and therefore do not put risk assessment high on their agenda. In 1998 The US Department of Agriculture is still only spending a one percent of the funds allocated to biotechnology research to fund risk assessment [19].

In 1997 two researchers Allison Snow and Pedro Moran Palma criticized the adequacy of the current field-testing procedures. They argue that since the tests are designed in such a way to rule out "gene flow" by insisting on early harvesting or bagging the flowers they are not adequate to access the major risk associated with a large scale commercial planting of the transgenetic crop. Furthermore, the fact that the experimental area is small and the time scale is limited to one or at the most a few harvests means that there is little possibility for access the negative impact on microorganisms, insects and plants.

Genetic engineering ought to be treated as the novel process that it is. Regulations ought to be much more demanding and rigorous. Independent verification must be build into the process if it is to regain public trust. Adequate resources need to be put into the regulatory agencies so that the research is thorough.

Problems with Regulatory Agencies.

In the light of the above example is it any wonder that many environmental and consumer groups are very unhappy with national and international regulatory agencies. In the U.S, as we have seen, the existing regime in most cases is that genetically engineered products do not require a pre-market approval process, public notification, or any labeling whatsoever to inform consumers of their novel and possibly harmful characteristics. The FDA does have the power to regulate food, but in the case of most genetically engineered foods has chosen not to do so. According to the New York Times article the FDA maintains a list of foods that need no regulation because they are "generally recognized as safe" (or "GRAS"). Since 1992 FDA has allowed companies like Monsanto to decide for themselves whether their new genetically-engineered foods should be added to the GRAS list and thus escape regulation. In other words, FDA regulation of genetically engineered foods is voluntary, not mandatory. This is why The Council For Responsible Genetics claims that a precautionary "safety proven first" policy has been scrapped in favour of corporate economic interests is very serious indeed.

Industry is essentially placed on an "honour system," deciding when and whether to consult with the FDA. Companies conduct safety tests for their own bio-engineered products, notifying the FDA only if they suspect a problem. If they perceive no danger to consumers, companies are not required to state that their product has been genetically manipulated or to reveal the source of implanted genes. They are not required to make the results of their safety tests available to the public.

If something goes wrong the FDA will not have a complete set of information regarding genetically engineered foods on the market, so there will be no way to trace who or what is responsible should a problem occur. Not only does the FDA policy forfeit consumers' right to know how their food has been manufactured, it also impedes the public's right to safe and tested food products by allowing the companies who profit from biotechnology to decide if and when a product is hazardous.

More worrying still consumer and environmental groups also claim that Monsanto, and other corporations, have successfully co-opted national and regulatory agencies to promote their agenda. The revolving door syndrome whereby high ranking personnel from the corporate world move into critical positions in the FDA and then back to industry raises questions about the thoroughness and impartiality of the FDA and other regulatory bodies. For example, it transpires that Michael Taylor, the FDA official who wrote the guidelines which prohibits farmers or dairy companies from labelling their milk as free from the Monsanto Bovine Growth Hormone, spent seven years as a Monsanto corporation lawyer[20]. Most citizens would wonder how impartial such a decision might be.

George Monbiot writing in The Guardian about the FDA's handling of Monsanto observes that, "the administration has approved some of the company's most controversial products, including the artificial sweetener aspartame and the injectable growth hormone for cattle. Only the New York Attorney General's office has taken the company to task, forcing it to withdraw adverts claiming that Roundup is biodegradable and environmentally friendly" [21].

In May 1998 consumer groups, a number of biologists from the University of California and the University of Minnesota, a rabbi, a Protestant minister and a prominent New York restaurant chef filed suit in Washington against FDA policies on genetically engineered foods. They claimed that the FDA had not fully assessed the health risks to consumers and that the regulators had been too eager to let companies market genetically engineered foods with requiring safety tests, or at least, special labels.

Many fear that public research institutions are working hand-in-glove with TNCs to suppress any research that might be construed to be anti-GE. In 1994 an 80 page report from the FDA entitled "Use of Bovine Somatotropin (BST) in the United States" concluded that there is no evidence that BST poses any threat to human or animal health. British scientists, however, revealed that their efforts to publish evidence that rBGH may increase the cow's susceptibility to mastitis were blocked by Monstanto for three years. The scientists showed that Monsanto's submission to the FDA was based on selected data which covered up what the research had revealed, namely that there was more pus in rBGH-treated cows.

Three years later in 1997 The Guardian reporters John Vidal and Mark Milner confirmed these criticisms of the regulatory agencies in the final article of a four-day special on biotechnology and food. They found:

· A revolving door between the US government and the biotech industry.

· Heavy lobbying to rewrite world food safety standards in favour of biotechnology[22].

· New laws protecting the US food industry from criticism.

A further cause for worry is that the corporate reach has moved far beyond the national boundaries to include the decision making process of multilateral organisations like the World Trade Organisation (WT0). Monsanto has successfully elicited a ruling from the WTO that will make it impossible for the European Union to ban the importation of meat and milk from animals which have been treated with bovine growth hormones even though European consumers, environmentalists and farmers are opposed to such a move. Consumer confidence is further damaged by claims in Scientific America that Monsanto's clinical trials of the drug were incompletely analyzed. This obscured the fact that it increased the number of infected udder cells in the cows by about 20 per cent [23].

The power of transnational corporations was demonstrated once again in February 1999 when the US effectively sabotaged a treaty on biosafety in Columbia. The US refused to allow commodities like soya beans and corn to be included in the treaty. If these had been listed they have to be clearly labeled. The US wants to avoid this at all costs because consumers could freely choose not to buy the product [24]. In August 2002 the Elliot Thomas in the UK Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs admitted that, "There is enormous international pressure to allow GM crops and seeds in this country… from the biotech companies. They are going through the national governments and the World Trade Organisation and presssurising the EU"[25].

The publication GeneWatch some of the difficulties associated with the current testing regime. These include the fact that:

· There is little experience to draw on. All the environmental data so far has been derived from small scale field trials.

· Extrapolating to the wider environment inevitably brings considerable scientific uncertainty given varying climatic and agricultural practices.

· Most trials are designed to evaluate the agronomic characteristics (e.g. yield) rather than the ecological impact.

· Studies are currently conducted on a case-by-case basis neglecting the potential for cumulative impacts (e.g. as ever increasing numbers of herbicide resistant crops are grown).

· With regard to human health, testing has, to date, relied on laboratory studies with laboratory species [26].

The basis for this lax EPA policy is the inaccurate premise that genetic engineering is only a minor extension of traditional breeding, not significant enough to warrant a unique policy for this technology. The bio-engineering industry has opted for the term genetic modification rather than the more accurate term genetic engineering. This has been done to try to convince the public that genetic engineering is a simple logical progression from traditional forms of biotechnology as we saw on page ????..

The Principle of substantial equivalence is totally inadequate

Many people are critical of the level of collusion between academics, public regulatory institutions and large TNCs. Environment. We saw earlier when Steven Druker alleged that there has been a cover up in the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) over the notion of "substantial equivalence". At the international level the joint Safety Report on genetically-engineered foods issued in 1996 by the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and the World Health Organisation (WHO) decided that the WHOs Codex Alimentarius Commission will decide on the safety of genetically engineered foods. Risk assessment will be based on the "principle of substantial equivalence" which has been severely criticized by many scientists as totally inadequate. The focus here is not on how the food was produced, whether from natural or genetically engineered seeds, but on the chemical nature of the food. Should a chemical analysis of the food or food ingredient find that the product is substantially the same as the naturally produced one, no label should be required on safety grounds. In fact no label should be used at all as this might be interpreted as discriminating against genetically produced foods. According to the agribusiness corporations genetically engineered foods are no different from naturally produced food.

However, consumer groups and scientists are unhappy with the notion of substantial equivalence. They cite the process that led to the BSE epidemic and argue that sheep products fed as protein supplement to cattle would probably have passed the substantial equivalence test, yet the presence of prion proteins led to a public health disaster. Worries about toxicity and allergenicity that have been highlighted earlier might not turn up in laboratory experiments for substantial equivalence. Finally, the tests for substantial equivalence are so undiscriminating that according to Dr. Mae-Wan Ho "unintended changes, such as toxins and allergens, could easily escape detection" [27].

Registration, Segregation and labelling

The FDA must require industry to notify them when any genetically engineered food goes on the market. In the event of problems, this would provide a "trail" for scientists, medical personnel and regulators to follow in order to determine the origins of an unsafe product.

0pinion polls in Europe and elsewhere indicate the public want clear and informative labeling of genetically engineered foods. A basic step in honouring this consumer preference is to segregate genetically engineered foods from natural foods at the sources. Many of the corporations that produce genetically engineered foods are opposed to segregation and labeling. They claim that it would be too expensive since it would involve using different containers, trucks and warehouses. They protest that their products are safe and have latched on to the concept of 'substantial equivalence' developed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). This means that, "if a new food or food component is found to be substantially equivalent to an existing food or food component, it can be treated in the same manner with respect to safety" [28].

It is clear from a Guardian poll in June 1998 that people want to know whether the food they eat is derived from genetically engineered products. In response to the question whether “foods that have been genetically modified should be clearly labeled”, 96 percent answered Yes. In 1997 a similar opinion poll in the US commissioned by Novartis found that 97 percent wanted all biotech food labeled. The Irish Department of the Environment's Consultation Paper recognises that, "from a consumer point of view, the information currently being provided is inadequate to facilitate clear choices on whether or not to purchase products containing GMOs or products using genetic modification techniques" [29].

The only way to achieve this in a satisfactory is to segregate genetically engineered food from non-genetically engineered at source. Otherwise there will be problems, even if mandatory labeling for genetically engineered food is introduced. Without segregation, for example, tomato paste from genetically engineered tomatoes would have to be labeled, but a processed food like lasagne that contained genetically engineered tomatoes would need no label. Mandatory labelling of all genetically engineered food products should be required by law and not left to the retail outlets.

Segregation and clear labeling is the minimum requirement necessary to ensure product safety and protect a consumer's right to choose whether or not to purchase these products. Consumer groups all over Europe and the United States are calling for such a system. Once again in the matter of labeling the public are poorly served by the regulatory Agencies. In response to the research that a soybean that contained a Brazil caused an allergic response in the trial group an editorial in the prestigious medical magazine The New England Journal of Medical chided the FDA in the US for its unwillingness to demand verifiable and across-the-board labeling. The editors stated that it appeared that the FDA "favour industry over consumer protection" [30].

The decision by some retail outlets to label with the words 'may contain genetically modified products' means very little. If there is no segregation almost all processed food might contain some genetically modified substances. In practice this would prevent the consumer from exercising her or his choice of choosing foods that are not genetically engineered.

Opposition to Genetic Engineering in the Third World

Third World people are aware of the potential damage that genetically engineered organisms could do to their society and environment. 50 peasant, indigenous and environmental groups from all over Latin America gathered in Quito, Equador in January 1999 to review developments in the area of agricultural biotechnology. They published a Latin American Declaration on Transgenic Organisms. The document rejects genetic engineering “because it is an ethically questionable technology which violates the integrity of human life, of species which have inhabited our planet for millions of years”. The document also focuses on the economic and social impact of genetic engineering. “Genetic engineering is a technology driven by commercial interest. It is not necessary. It forces us to become dependent on the TNCs which control it, putting our autonomy to decisions about productions systems and food security into real danger. Especially in the field of agriculture, there are traditional and alternative technologies which do not pose such risks and which are compatible with the conservation of biodiversity”.

In India environmentalists, farmers and peasant groups have protested against the permission, given by the Indian Government to Monsanto, to field test genetically engineered cotton seeds. In the Southern Indian States of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh farmers have begun to burn such fields. The campaign against genetically engineered crops has been labeled ‘Cremation Monsanto’ . One of the main criticisms of the group is that Monsanto have not taken the biosafety measures they would be forced to take in trials in First World countries. They claim, for example, that there are no buffer zone between the test fields and the rest of the farm lands. Locals claim that in Europe the company would not be able to get away with such a policy [31].

In reality Biotech companies do not always keep the rules when conducting trials in First World countries. In February 1999 Monsanto were fined £17,000 for failing to observe the six feet buffer zone at a test site in Lincolnshire where GE oilseed rape was been grown. It also appeared that funding for monitoring was grossly inadequate. A mere £80,000 was allocated to monitor the 340 test sites in Britain during 1998. As a result only 70 sites were visited [32]. In August 2002 Aventis admitted that they had planted the wrong type of seed for three years in 14 rapeseed fields across the country as part of GE crop trials.

Opposition from Religious Leaders

Pope John Paul 11 in a talk to an estimated 50,000 Italian farmers on November 12^th 2002 exhorted them to "resist the temptation of high productivity and profit that work to the detriment of the respect of nature". The Pope added that "when (farmers) forget this basic principle and become tyrants of the earth rather than its custodians…sooner or later the earth rebels". Later in the talk he returned to this theme and said that if modern farming techniques do not "reconcile themselves with the simple language of nature in a healthy balance, the life of man will run ever greater risks, of which we already are seeing worrying signs" While the pope did not specify what these risks might be commentators believed he was speaking about the risks involved in genetically engineered foods [33].

The pope returned to this idea of life as a gift and the limitations of human intervention in his Lenten letter of 2002. "You received without paying, give without pay". May these words of the Gospel echo in the heart of all Christian communities on their penitential pilgrimage to Easter. May Lent, recalling the mystery of the Lord's Death and Resurrection, lead all Christians to marvel in their heart of hearts at the greatness of such a gift. Yes! We have received without pay. Is not our entire life marked by God's kindness? The beginning of life and its marvelous development: this is a gift. And because it is gift, life can never be regarded as a possession or as private property, even if the capabilities we now have to improve the quality of life can lead us to think that man is the "master" of life.

The achievements of medicine and biotechnology can sometimes lead man to think of himself as his own creator, and to succumb to the temptation of tampering with "the tree of life" (Gn 3:24).

It is also worth repeating here that not everything that is technically possible is morally acceptable. Scientific work aimed at securing a quality of life more in keeping with human dignity is admirable, but it must never be forgotten that human life is a gift ,and that it remains precious even when marked by suffering and limitations. A gift to be accepted and to be loved at all times: received without pay and to be placed without pay at the service of others.

The archbishop of Manila Jaime Cardinal Sin made much the same point in a pastoral statement on genetic engineering in agricultural products published on May 8^th 2001. He stated "that genetic engineering is acceptable only if all risks are minimized. Otherwise, one may easily succumb to temptations of productivity and profit at the expense of the people and environment. And as long as foreseeable dangers are not fully identified, studied and avoided, safe alternative procedures should be used, or in none, testing and development of the technology should be avoided altogether".

The Bishop of Marbel, Dinualdo Gutierrez condemned the field trial of Bt-Corn in South Cotabato in June 2001. Further north in Luzon Bishop Sergio Utleg of the Diocese of Ilagan wrote a pastoral letter against field trials for genetically engineered crops. After stating that, "the Church is not against development and modern technology" he went on to ask a few question. "For whom is this development? Who is to benefit from these so-called development projects and modern technology? Development must serve the needs and promote the progress of all people" according to the bishop [34].

Even though the Catholic Church has attempted to develop a creation theology in recent years and in some pronouncements has questioned genetic engineering of plants and animals Rome does not seem to have a consistent position on this question. Speaking at a conference on biotechnology in October 2002 Bishop Elio Sgreccia, vice president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, said, "There are no impediments to animal and vegetable biotechnologies. "The latter "can be justified with the motive that they are for the good of man. God has conceived animals and vegetables as good creatures for man's needs," the bishop added. He did add an unspecified caution when he stated that God has also given "man the task and responsibility to govern creation," which implies a grave responsibility, Bishop Sgreccia emphasized Therefore, "the use of plants and animals is legitimate, but it does not represent an absolute right. The Church has an open but conditioned position," he added. "For this reason, we ask for sales to be accompanied by a label [mentioning GMOs] and their total availability for developing countries, in keeping with criteria of solidarity and justice"[35] [1].

The bishop focused completely on the impact of this new technology on humankind even when he champions labelling and equity for hungry people in the Third World. The rights of other species not to be subjected to cruel experimentation or to have their genetic integrity, particularly at the species level, respected by human beings is not even raised.

Opposition to GE Crops is More Resolute in Europe

Given this open approach to politicians and regulators it is understandable that until recently there has been very little opposition to GE foods in the US. The biotech companies paved the way for public acceptance of the technology by investing heavily in 'educational' material in schools during the late 1980s and early 1990s.

Opposition to GE foods has been much more vigorous in Europe. It seems that Monsanto misjudged the reaction of European consumer concerns over genetically engineered products. A study in Germany in 1998 found that only 15 percent favoured GE food while 81 percent were opposed to it. In April 1998, Philip Angell, Monsanto’s s US director of corporate communications stated that "We made a mistake which we regret. We should have listened more carefully". Environment organisation believe that this remorse is not genuine. They see this pretense at listening and new found openness to dialogue with the opposition as merely another ploy to speedup acceptance of the genetically engineered products by consumers [36].

In October 1998, the New Scientist carried a report that other biotech companies were very critical of the tactics used by Monsanto in Europe. These companies feel that Monsanto is "largely to blame for a consumer backlash that could cripple the prospects for genetically engineered food in Europe ... A high-profile advertising campaign from Monsanto, designed to reassure European consumers, has if anything hardened negative public attitudes to agricultural biotechnology. 'We are as fed up as some others with the Yankee-Doodle language that comes to our consumers', says Greef of Novartis". The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) in Britain condemned Monsanto’s advertising campaign for making claims about GE foods that were “confusing, misleading, unproven and wrong”. Claims that GE crops were grown in environmentally sustainable way were also dismissed, and the suggestion that Monsanto would sacrifice sales of its herbicide Roundup to reduce pesticide use when it had no intention of doing so, was “confusing” [37].

One might ask who benefits from GE food? Is it the consumer? Are they demanding this kind of food technology? The answer would seem to be a resounding, No. A survey on Consumer Attitudes to Genetic Engineering and Food Safety, commissioned by the environmental organisation, Genetic Concern, was carried out in Ireland by Lansdowne Market Research in January 1999. The survey found that very few people felt that they were well informed about genetic engineering. 78 per cent said that they knew little or nothing about the technology. Most of those who felt they were well informed, 89 percent were concerned about the implications of genetic engineering for food safety. Only 8 per cent were unconcerned. Generally speaking women, especially married women were more concerned than men. This is hardly surprising since women do the bulk of the weekly shopping. When asked whether they were concerned about genetic engineering, a clear majority of those interviewed said they were.

If genetic engineering of food is not been driven by consumer demand, where is the demand coming from? Mr. John McKenna, a food writer with the Irish Times told the Irish Association of Health Stores that the consumers do not want GMOs in their food. "There is no demand from any quarter other than the producers of GM0 food" ( The Irish Times, Oct 20. 1997). It started as a trickle a few years ago. Now the consumer is faced with a flood of genetically modified organisms appearing on the supermarket shelves. The range covers foods that contain genetically engineered rapeseed oil, soybeans, maize, sugar beet, squash. potatoes and cucumber. More than half the processed foods on the supermarket shelves contain soya in one form or another. An opinion poll carried out by The Guardian in Britain in June 1998 found that 50 percent of those asked were not happy with the introduction of genetically modified foods, while only 14 percent were happy.

Despite the consumer resistance they are left with little choice. Many companies that sell soybean, for example, have refused to segregate genetically engineered soybeans from ordinary soybeans. As a result the consumer is being forced to eat food that is genetically modified often without knowing that the product contains genetically engineered soya.

The Supermarket chain Iceland with 770 stores in Britain and 6 in Ireland decided to ban all foods containing genetically engineered organisms. The founder and chief executive, (at the time) Malcolm Walker, accused biotechnology companies of "conning" Irish and British consumers and claimed that genetically engineered food is being introduced "by stealth". Health Food shops in Britain are also determined to rid the shelves of produce that might contain GE ingredients. The policy will include sauce mixes and vegetarian burger mixes[38].

Other giant stores like Sainsbury and Tesco were slow to take a stand against genetically engineered food. Sainsbury was the first supermarket to stock GE foods when it sold GE produced tomato puree in February 1995. After a lot of lobbying by consumers and the media it changed its mind in 1998. Its new policy agreed to source non-GM soya for all by 30-45 of its products and to label all GE foods. This does not include ingredients derived from genetically modified foods in which the DNA or protein is no longer dectable such as Soya oil [39].

The Irish supermarket chains Superquin published a pamphlet on Genetically Modified Food early in 1999. It accepted the biotech-industry's argument that there is a direct continuity between food modification using “either natural or biotechnological means”. It proclaims that the “benefits from genetically modification are many fold and include disease resistant crops; crops that require less herbicides and pesticides in their production; longer lasting fruits and vegetables, and foods with higher vitamin, mineral and protein contents and lower fat contents”. The document admitted there are concerns but it does not list them in the way it lists the so-called benefits. Superquinn promises that it will label foods that are “genetically modified or produced from genetically modified soya and genetically modified maize”. However, they will not label “oils or other soya and maize derivatives…. as they do not contain certain modified protein”. They claim that” the oils are identical to the oils from the non-modified seeds and they do not contain genetic material”. This is another version of the 'substantial equivalence' debate. The producers will not be forced to segregate the soya at source.

One boost to the campaign to ban GE foods has come from leading cookery writers like Darina Allen. She is one of a 100 leading cooks and food writers who demanding GE freed food. In Ms. Allen’s view “genetic engineering is not a precise science. There is no turning back, no second chance. We must be sure we are right and, if that means waiting 25 years, so be it”[40].

If the pressure to grow and eat genetically engineered food is not coming from the consumer, where is it coming from? Both John McKenna and Dr. Eddie Walsh of UCD agree that the push is coming from biotech companies like Monsanto that have invested huge amounts of money and stand to make the most out of the technology [41]. What the biotech companies want according to Don Westfall - vice president of botech consultancy Promar International - " is that over time the market is flooded (with GM) that there's nothing you can do about it. You just sort of surrender"[42]

It is worth pointing out that according to the United States Department of Agriculture 98 per cent of the modifications to date have been undertaken for commercial reasons. This includes extending the shelf-life of a product as in the case of the Flavor Savr tomato or making crops resistant to a patented herbicide. Virtually none of the modifications are designed to improve nutrition.

Call for a Moratorium on the Deliberate Release of Genetically Engineered Organisms

Given the difficulties associated with genetically engineered organisms I feel that there is good reason to insist on a moratorium on the deliberate release of genetically engineered organisms until the risks are much clearly understood and there is a thorough public discussion of all the issues involved. The moratorium must include a ban on the commercial growing of GE crops, the importation of GE food and ingredients and their use in human and animal feeds.

At t seminar on biotechnology during the Biosafety Meeting in Montreal in May 1997 a delegate from West Africa asked: How old is the oldest transgenetic line? None of the scientists present could answer his question. Dr. Mae-Wan Ho claims that there is, "no data documenting the stability of any trangentic line in gene expression, or in structure and location of the insert in the genome". She goes on to stipulate that "such data must include the level of gene expression as well as the genetic map and DNA base sequence of the insert and its site of insertion in the host genome for each successive generation. No such data has every been provided by the industry, nor requested by the regulatory authorities". Until such information is available at least over a five year period it makes all kind of sense to insist on a moratorium.

The Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington in their 1993 report on genetic engineering entitled "Perils Amidst the Promise" also promote the idea of a moratorium. They concluded that no company should be permitted to commercialise a transgenetic crop in the United States until a strong government programme is in place that assures risk assessment and control of all transgenetic crops. On the biodiversity front they call for adequate protection for the centres of crop diversity in the US and elsewhere in the world.

Austria has also imposed a moratorium on field trials of genetically engineered organisms. One million, two hundred thousand people, representing 20 per cent of the population signed a petition supporting a ban on genetically engineered foods, as well as a moratorium on the deliberate release of genetically engineered organisms. Switzerland is also held a referendum on genetic engineering on June 7, 1998. After a bitterly fought campaign the voters decided to reject a proposal to ban the patenting and production of genetically altered plants and animals. Unlike other countries at least the people of Switzerland had an opportunity to decided the matter for themselves.

In the wake of the controversy surrounding Professor Pusztai's findings on GE potatoes fed to rats forty environmental and religious organisations in Britain called for a 5 year ban on GE food. This call for caution seems eminently reasonable given the fact that the issues are so grave and the dangers of getting it wrong are too serious. A car manufacturer can recall a faulty batch of vehicles and repair or replace them. One cannot do this with organic life. As humans have learned from bitter experience, it is impossible to recall a living organism.

The story of the African Killer Bee ought to foster caution. A noted Brazilian geneticist, Warwick Kerr, was experimenting with the bees when it accidentally escaped into the wild. This happened in the late 1950s. The bee has now spread throughout South and Central America and is moving north in the United States with devastating results for the environment and people.

Such dramatic failures by scientists themselves should breed caution. Recombinant DNA techniques has delivered enormous power into the hands of a small group of people in the biotechnology corporations where profits often tend to take precedence over everything else. For this reason the public should make sure that a lot more is known about the safety of genetically engineered organisms before any group in society is allowed to begin to tinker in an extensive and impactful way with the building blocks of life. There should be a full-scale public debate on both the benefits and risks involved in genetic engineering based on comprehensive scientific knowledge and a full airing of the economic, social and ethical implications of biotechnology.

Countries like Ireland and the Philippines Should Follow Norway's example.

In 1996 Norway adopted a consultation model on biotechnology which was developed by the Danish Board of Science. In the process groups of ordinary people assessed the various aspects of biotechnology including the ethical, economic, political, social and legal perspective, in addition to the narrower technological considerations before deciding whether Norway should opt for biotechnology. The panel concluded that there was no need for genetically modified food in Norway today, because the selection, availability and quality of ordinary food is satisfactory. Too many uncertain factors attach to genetic engineering.

We would do well to follow this example until much more is known about genetically engineered organisms. Unfortunately the consultation process announced by the Minister for the Environment, Noel Dempsey in 1999 was totally unsatisfactory from the perspective of the participating NGOs. The NGOs felt that the debate with the biotech industry was superficial and lacked any depth. It was very poorly structured and amounted to little more than an exchange of sound-bites. For this reason the majority of NGOs withdrew from the process. It came as no surprise to the NGO community that the consultation document, published in October 1999 came down on the side of the biotech industry. The report misrepresents the biocentric ethical argument when on page 22 it states that it sets it tries to set the well-being of comprehensive community over against the well-being of the human community [43]. What is needed is a much more transparent and participative process. To date both of these facet have been singularly absent from the process.

Unfortunately, during much of the last three years there is much less debate on genetic engineering. One of the major reasons for this is that the NGO Genetic Concern collapsed in 2000. The handful of people who ran the organisation just could not continue to keep up the pressure. This is good news for the corporate world. As Guardain editorial for February 17, 1999 puts it "giant corporations have staked everything on pushing through the biotech revolution at maximum sped". There is no reason why governments and individual citizens should jump out of the way to facilitate the companies making huge profits. Governments must take time to time to evaluate the scientific, economic and social impact of this powerful technology.

Another set back to a GE-free world happened, this time in the Philippines, on December 5, 2002. Monsanto announced that their GE Bt corn variety called "Yieldgard" had been approved for commercial release by the Philippine Department of Agriculture. The potential for polluting non-Bt corn is enormous for two reasons. In the Philippines the average size of a farm is only 1.5 hectares and, secondly, corn is wind pollinated. So even if the Department of Agriculture in the Philippines demands that there be a significant distance between GE and non-GE corn it will only be a matter of time before all the corn grown in the Philippines is either GE corn or GE contaminated corn. This is what the corporations which control the corn seed markets in the country want. Monsanto already control 30 percent of the commercial corn seed market, while DuPont/Pioneer control a further 60 percent. The decision to allow the commercial planting of Bt. Corn will have an enormous negative impact on the lives of the 600,000 corn farmers in the Philippines. It is a death knell especially for farmers with small holdings.

The environmental organisation Greenpeace has called on the Philippine Government to revoke their decision to allow the commercial planting of GE Bt corn. They also called for genuine public participation and transparency on all decisions regarding the introduction of genetically engineered organism[44].