by Ginger Harris
Genetic Engineering (GE) has been very much in the news recently from the ground–breaking for a new Plant Technology Center in St. Louis to the protests against GE in Europe and at the World Trade Organization conference in Seattle. Will this new technology help to “feed the hungry of the world,” as its advocates predict? Or will it have unanticipated consequences that make our descendants wish we had not acted so rashly to commercialize it before fully understanding it? The following article is based on notes from a presentation about Genetic Engineering in agriculture given by Melissa Belvadi at the St. Louis Ethical Society 9:45 Forum on Oct. 31, 1999. This article will address the following topics: the scientific basis of GE of crops; whether GE is just like traditional selective breeding; impacts on human health and on the environment; some global and economic impacts; labeling and regulation; and finally, the claims that GE will help to feed the world’s current and future hungry populations.
The science behind GE
GE involves the extraction of genes from one organism and insertion into another organism in order to give the second organism some desirable trait of the first. Genes are the fundamental carriers of biological traits. Genes determine that we have two eyes and what color they are. Genes are made up of DNA, and genes themselves make up chromosomes. It’s the location of a gene sequence on the chromosomes that determines what the gene actually does. In order to understand how GE is different from conventional selective cross–breeding, we need to understand what alleles are. Alleles are the different forms in which a genetic trait can express itself; for example, blue versus brown eyes. Alleles are limited to the options available in the gene pool for that particular gene for that particular species.
What is the process for creating a GE plant?
1. Through genome mapping scientists identify which particular stretch of which chromosome controls a trait they want; for instance, the ability of a flounder to resist freezing in very cold water.
2. Scientists use special lab techniques to cut just that segment out and attach to it a special virus. They also add another bit of DNA which confers the trait of antibiotic resistance.
3. The virus creates millions of copies of this chromosome segment in a petri dish.
4. The technician “loads” the millions of bits of DNA into a “gene gun” and “shoots” them at the cells of the seed of the target plant, for instance, a tomato.
5. Some bits of DNA “take” and some miss. An antibiotic is applied to the DNA bits that didn’t “take” in order to kill off the latter. The previously introduced antibiotic resistance helps keep the absorbed DNA bits alive. This antibiotic resistance remains forever in the crop.
6. Technicians grow the cells into full plants, and then study them in more traditional ways to confirm that they have the desirable traits. The gene gun has no control as to where on the plant’s various chromosomes the new DNA inserts itself. Scientists assume that if the DNA landed in a bad place they’ll find out during the growing stage because the plant will show ill effects. These plants are discarded.
How is GE different from selective breeding?
Proponents of GE technology often claim that GE does the same thing that plant breeders have done for thousands of years. Proponents call both processes “gene enhancement” and say GE merely selects traits with more control than we ever had in the past. The most important difference between GE and selective breeding involves the difference between genes and alleles. Selective breeding involves crossing two different members of the same species. In this case, both original plants have the same genes. The breeder tries to combine a particular allele from one parent (e.g. color) with the desirable alleles of the other parent (e.g. height). If the wrong alleles combine (e.g. unwanted color with unwanted height), the breeder keeps trying. But the chromosomes maintain their integrity. The process of combining involves normal sexual reproduction, which is a mechanism that has evolved over millions of years. Conventional breeding avoids disrupting the basic functions of the plant. GE, on the other hand, adds a completely new function when it adds new genes from other species. Dr. Michael Antoniou, senior lecturer in molecular biology and experimental pathology at King’s College London, with 17 years experience in the use of genetic engineering, wrote: “The totally artificial nature of GE does not automatically make it dangerous. It is the imprecision in the manner by which genes are combined and the unpredictability in how the introduced gene will interact within its new environment which results in uncertainty. The balanced gene functions that have evolved together and which are preserved with traditional methods, are lost with GE… The manner in which GE animals and plants are produced always selects for the splicing of the foreign gene into regions of the host DNA where other natural genes are trying to work. Given the interdependence of gene function within any grouping of genes, this random splicing of the foreign gene into the host DNA will always result in a disruption in the normal genetic order. Therefore, GE of animals and especially of plants always results in a loss, to a lesser or greater degree, of the tight genetic control and balanced functioning which is retained through conventional cross breeding.” Some biological and ecological dangers of GE The overarching danger is the introduction of unexpected side effects at a genetic level, a phenomenon that scientists have labeled pleiotropy. Pleiotropic effects are by their nature unpredictable. These effects can happen in one of two main ways: either the gene that was clipped out from the source organism actually does more than was expected or desired, or that gene when added to your target organism combines with the other genes already there to do more than desired. For example, scientists trying to make red petunia flowers engineered a red gene from corn with white petunia flowers. They did get red petunias, but those red petunias also had more leaves and lowered fertility, which was completely unexpected by the scientists; who still don’t know exactly why. Similarly, a GE effort to make faster growing salmon made faster growing green salmon, and again, the scientists could not explain where the green came from. Scientists are coming to understand that genes are not independent bundles of function. They are highly interdependent with the other genes that make up the total organism, creating what Dr. Antoniou described as “gene balance.” Scientists do not yet understand how that balance works. There is immense potential risk to human beings and to the ecosystem in commercializing the products of GE without first understanding gene balance.
Risks
Below are some specific biological and ecological risks from GE that are either expected or already documented: 1. The unexpected effects of GE could create or introduce allergens or other toxins. Many plants, like tomatoes, have the ability to create substances that are very toxic to humans, but which have been bred out of them by centuries of selective breeding. “Bred out of them” may just mean “made the gene inactive,” whereas the engineered gene could turn one of these toxin–creating genes back on. Since we don’t know where on the chromosome the inactive toxin gene is, and we don’t control where the new gene goes, this possibility is completely out of the engineer’s control. Also, the transferred gene itself may carry a human allergen in it. For instance, an early attempt to transfer a desirable trait of brazil nuts to another food accidentally transferred the brazil nut allergen. Many people are allergic to brazil nuts. The researchers discovered it only very late in the testing process and had to kill that product. The brazil nut allergen was known and could be tested for. But scientists are now looking at transferring genes from organisms which are not foods into food crops. Thus, there is simply no way of knowing — until they’re actually in the food supply — whether these new genes will be allergens to some proportion of the population.
2. The gene may affect the nutritional quality of food. There are already controversial studies being done on GE soybeans which are now being grown extensively in the US. Some studies show that some GE soybeans have less phytoestrogens than regular soybeans. Phytoestrogens are considered useful in counteracting cancer. Some biotech–industry studies dispute the negative studies. One problem is that the government did not test for nutritional content before permitting large scale commercialization of these products.
3. Another risk to humans is the possible increase in exposure to pesticides from the agricultural practices that are changed by GE products. Close to 80% of GE crops now in fields in the US are specifically engineered for resistance to herbicides. An herbicide kills plants, so people usually don’t consume much herbicide on their food, since spraying it on the food would have killed the crop. When crops become immune to herbicide through genetic engineering, however, farmers can spray much more herbicide directly on the edible crop. Thus, the herbicide will enter the human food supply as never before. Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide is at the heart of this issue because there is increasing scientific data suggesting that consumption of Roundup can cause non–Hodgkins lymphoma (a type of cancer), depressed immune system, and a near fatal condition called toxic pneumonitis.
4. GE plants may be considered non–indigenous plants: they did not evolve their characteristics in synchronization with the other organisms of the local ecosystem. Humans have learned the hard lesson — e.g. from snakes in Guam to kudzu in the Deep South — that introducing non–indigenous organisms can have very unexpected and very negative effects on the environment. GE plants pose a special risk because many of the traits being engineered into these plants convey extra survivability that would help them overcompete in the wild, for instance through insect resistance or cold resistance. This risk might come from the GE crop itself escaping from the farm to become a weed. Or it could come from the pollen of the crop being crossed by Mother Nature’s pollinators with weedy local relatives to create superweeds.
5. GE poses a risk to beneficial organisms in the ecosystem. Research indicates that Monarch butterflies are harmed by GE corn, and lacewings and ladybugs (which serve an important ecological function both for farmers and in the wild) are harmed by specific GE products now used extensively in the Corn Belt. 6. Another risk is that of gene pollution to neighboring farms. So far, three cases have been documented in which GE pollen has blown to organic or non–GE farms, and pollinated and tainted the latters’ crops.
7. GE risks the loss of a valuable organic pest control tool: the naturally occurring bacteria, bacillus thurengiensis (Bt). Bt’s ability to kill crop pests like the cotton boll weevil, European core borer, and cucumber and squash beetles — while not killing beneficial insects like bees, nor affecting the plant at all — makes Bt valuable to farmers. Organic farmers and gardeners have been using Bt for decades to control these pests. Because Bt lasts only a few days on plants outside, farmers have used it only when they actually see the pests, and spray in limited amounts to control them. Organic farmers in particular are concerned about insects building up resistance, and have followed a kind of ethical code to use Bt judiciously, as it represents the only organic treatment for some of these crop–killing pests. This kind of limited use has meant virtually no serious resistance developed over several decades of use. However, instead of inventing their own means of killing pests like the corn borer and cotton boll weevil, GE scientists have co–opted Bt. Since no one owned Bt, no one could stop them. They engineered the “active ingredient” of Bt directly into crops, especially corn and cotton. This 100%–present use guarantees that insect resistance will build quickly, after which Bt itself, as well as seeds engineered with Bt, will become useless to everyone. Scientists argue about how long it will take for Bt to lose its effectiveness. The biotech industry claims 10 years, but recent studies indicate an even faster loss. When Bt’s effectiveness is lost, it is lost forever, and thousands of organic farmers whose livelihoods depend on these crops will have no defense against these pests. The two sides also argue over plans for setting aside “refuges” to slow down (but not prevent) the inevitable loss of resistance. Recent studies indicate that the assumptions on which the biotech industry made its calculations on the rate of development of resistance — and on which the USDA approved Bt–engineered products and refuge plans — are turning out to be flawed. Some assumptions involved how long Bt–resistant pests vs. non–resistant pests require to reach maturity, and whether the pest’s resistance is a dominant or recessive trait. (see Nature Aug 5, 1999, “Bollworms, Genes and Ecologists,” by M. J. Crawley.) Global and economic impacts GE poses complex economic risks, because a very small group of companies are gaining control over the most important food crops of the world. The top three conventional seed corporations (Dupont/Pioneer, Monsanto, and Novartis) also constitute two of the top three GE seed marketers. These same three companies are among the top five agri–chemical, pesticide and herbicide sellers world–wide. By the end of 1998, Monsanto controlled 87% of the US cotton seed market, and now grows 88% of all GE seed. Four companies (DuPont/Pioneer, Monsanto, Novartis, and Dow) control 69% of the North American corn seed market and at least 47% of the commercial soybean seed market. The top five vegetable seed companies control 75% of the global vegetable seed market. These companies can use their leverage to pressure farmers — especially farmers in poor countries dependent on IMF or private microcredit loans — into purchasing these companies’ GE crops and chemicals. Farmers have experienced that kind of pressure already with the Green Revolution. Monsanto recently came close to an exclusive deal with Grameen Bank, which extends microcredit loans in third world countries. Farmers rely heavily on loans, since they have a lot of up–front costs in the spring and no income until harvest in the fall. Thus, an exclusive deal between Monsanto and Grameen would be very strong leverage in favor of Monsanto. Seed companies are working to engineer, into the plants themselves, the control technology that would force farmers to keep buying the company’s seeds instead of saving their own seeds from each harvest. Due to public outrage, Monsanto now says it won’t use the Terminator Technology, which it will own if its proposed purchase of Delta Pine and Land Co. is accepted by the Federal Trade Commission. But the big seed companies are now working on a related technology, dubbed “Traitor genes,” in which the seed won’t germinate unless a new chemical is sprayed on them. This technology would, again, deny farmers any benefit from saving seeds. The companies say that farmers can always choose not to buy the GE seeds if they aren’t to the farmer’s advantage. But it’s not that easy. If your neighbor sprays Roundup over his farm, the drift will kill your crop unless yours is also genetically engineered to survive Roundup. This has already happened. This kind of problem in combination with the possible restrictions on loans, the loss of Bt as a tool for organic farmers, control by the same companies over the conventional seed market, and the genetic pollution referred to earlier, make a mockery of the idea that farmers can choose. Labeling and Regulation A rational and efficient market assumes that consumers make informed choices. However, without labeling which food is or is not genetically engineered, consumers cannot make informed choices. The issue of labeling also involves the basic right of people to know what they’re eating, whether or not it poses any known risks. In addition, as pointed out by molecular biologist and cancer researcher, Dr. John Fagan, “without labeling, it will be very difficult for scientists to trace the source of new illness caused by genetically engineered food.” GE companies have fought to prevent labeling by arguing that organic growers will benefit the most from labeling and therefore should bear the additional cost of labeling. However, the primary issue involves consumer information and choice, not the cost of labeling. In fact, organic and non–GE producers would be glad to pay for labeling, but are currently denied even the right to label their own food, under threat of lawsuit by certain GE companies. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are theoretically charged with regulating food in the US. However, because of documented instances of agency employees going to work for GE companies they were regulating immediately before and/or after their stint in government, the regulatory agencies are just as likely to promote as to regulate GE food. All ecological safety testing is done by the companies. Government agencies provide no raw data oversight. Once a product gains commercial approval, government oversight largely ends. Regarding the regulation of food safety, in 1992 the FDA issued a controversial policy that genetically engineered foods are “substantially equivalent” to conventional foods, and thus do not have to be labeled or safety tested prior to entering the marketplace. So far, every single GE product has been granted this status and no toxicological or nutrition tests have been done by the US government. A recent article in the journal Nature addressed this policy as follows: “The concept of substantial equivalence has never been properly defined; the degree of difference between a natural food and its Genetically Modified (GM) alternative before its ‘substance’ ceases to be acceptably ‘equivalent’ is not defined anywhere, nor has an exact definition been agreed by legislators. … Substantial equivalence is a pseudo–scientific concept because it is a commercial and political judgment masquerading as if it were scientific. It is, moreover, inherently anti–scientific because it was created primarily to provide an excuse for not requiring biochemical or toxicological tests. It therefore serves to discourage and inhibit potentially informative scientific research.” Regarding the validity of the testing that the agencies do require, current US government policy is that once a product is approved for commercial release based on small test plots, no further oversight is done. However, Philip Regal, a molecular ecologist at the University of Minnesota, implies that even the limited testing that agencies require is inadequate: “Small field populations of genetically engineered organisms (GEOs) can provide valuable data to help make decisions about widespread commercial releases. But one cannot claim that since plants in small confined and ecologically irrelevant field plots, plots used largely to study commercial features, have not ‘caused problems’ or have not ‘caused surprises’ then it will be safe to truly release any transgenic forms commercially. For example, ‘no adverse consequences have resulted from work in more than fifteen years in laboratories and in over 500 field releases’ (Casper & Landsmann 1992, p. xiii). The term ‘releases’ is completely misleading. These were largely not scientific tests of realistic ecological concerns. It is hard even to imagine a case where one might have concerns that ecological problems might arise from widespread release, and where one would expect to see ‘problems’ by simple inspection of field plots, especially if they contained no potential native competitors. After all, ecological problems are only apt to occur within the context of biological and physical interactions that take place on natural soils and within a natural community of competitors. Yet this sort of non–data on nonreleases has been cited in policy circles as though 500 true releases have now informed scientists that there are no legitimate scientific concerns.” Is GE a solution for world hunger? The risks of GE could be outweighed if GE could relieve overwhelming human suffering. But evidence may actually point in the other direction. The quantity of food is not currently the cause of world hunger. An estimated 800 million people starve or are severely malnourished now. According to the United Nations’ World Food Programme, however, the world currently produces one–and–a–half times the amount required to provide everyone with a nutritious and adequate diet. In response to claims by Monsanto that GM crops will help feed the world’s growing population, 24 leading African agriculturists and environmental scientists representing their countries at the UN wrote: “We do not believe that such companies or gene technologies will help our farmers to produce the food that is needed in the 21st century. On the contrary, we think it will destroy the diversity, the local knowledge, and the sustainable agricultural systems that our farmers have developed for millennia and that it will thus undermine our capacity to feed ourselves.” In response to a comment in late 1997 by a British scientist who claimed that those who want GE crops banned are undermining the position of starving people in Ethiopia, Tewolde Egziabher of the Institute of Sustainable Development in Addis Ababa, said: “There are still hungry people in Ethiopia, but they are hungry because they have no money, no longer because there is no food to buy. We strongly resent the abuse of our poverty to sway the interests of the European public.” On the other hand, socio–economic factors seem to have more impact on world hunger than does the quantity of food produced. On June 30, 1999, the World Food Programme cited a recent study showing that improvements in women’s education have accounted for 44 % of the reduction in child malnutrition over the past 25 years. When women’s status also improved, the percentage increased to over 50%. To the extent that third–world farmers become dependent on buying seeds, pesticides, and fertilizers from multi–national corporations, and depend on selling their produce to first–world consumers, they may not be able to feed their own families. GE proponents try to justify the use of short–term technology, like Bt(which will be useless within 10 years) as a way to feed the world population in 2050. Proponents are rushing GE products into our food supply without adequate safety and nutrition testing and far in advance of the claimed need. Also, despite claims made for the technology’s potential to increase agricultural yields, the evidence for this is very weak and is contradicted by other evidence that GE crops give lower yields. In conclusion, the following quotes provide a reminder of the biological and economic risks to consumers inherent in the current commercialization of GE food. Robert Shapiro, Chief Executive of Monsanto, (SWF News interview, San Francisco, 27 October 1998): “But we realize that with any new and powerful technology with unknown, and to some degree unknowable — by definition — effects, then there necessarily will be an appropriate level at least, and maybe even more than that, of public debate and public interest.” Phil Angell, Monsanto’s director of corporate communications, in an interview with the New York Times Sunday Magazine: “Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the F.D.A’s job.” Finally, from one of the co–discoverers of the structure of DNA, Dr. James D. Watson: “This [genetic engineering] is a matter far too important to be left solely in the hands of the scientific and medical communities. The belief that…science always moves forward represents a form of laissez–faire nonsense dismally reminiscent of the credo that American business if left to itself will solve everybody’s problems. Success of a corporate body in making money need not set the human condition ahead.”by Ginger Harris
Genetic Engineering (GE) has been very much in the news recently from the ground–breaking for a new Plant Technology Center in St. Louis to the protests against GE in Europe and at the World Trade Organization conference in Seattle. Will this new technology help to “feed the hungry of the world,” as its advocates predict? Or will it have unanticipated consequences that make our descendants wish we had not acted so rashly to commercialize it before fully understanding it? The following article is based on notes from a presentation about Genetic Engineering in agriculture given by Melissa Belvadi at the St. Louis Ethical Society 9:45 Forum on Oct. 31, 1999. This article will address the following topics: the scientific basis of GE of crops; whether GE is just like traditional selective breeding; impacts on human health and on the environment; some global and economic impacts; labeling and regulation; and finally, the claims that GE will help to feed the world’s current and future hungry populations.
The science behind GE
GE involves the extraction of genes from one organism and insertion into another organism in order to give the second organism some desirable trait of the first. Genes are the fundamental carriers of biological traits. Genes determine that we have two eyes and what color they are. Genes are made up of DNA, and genes themselves make up chromosomes. It’s the location of a gene sequence on the chromosomes that determines what the gene actually does. In order to understand how GE is different from conventional selective cross–breeding, we need to understand what alleles are. Alleles are the different forms in which a genetic trait can express itself; for example, blue versus brown eyes. Alleles are limited to the options available in the gene pool for that particular gene for that particular species.
What is the process for creating a GE plant?
1. Through genome mapping scientists identify which particular stretch of which chromosome controls a trait they want; for instance, the ability of a flounder to resist freezing in very cold water.
2. Scientists use special lab techniques to cut just that segment out and attach to it a special virus. They also add another bit of DNA which confers the trait of antibiotic resistance.
3. The virus creates millions of copies of this chromosome segment in a petri dish.
4. The technician “loads” the millions of bits of DNA into a “gene gun” and “shoots” them at the cells of the seed of the target plant, for instance, a tomato.
5. Some bits of DNA “take” and some miss. An antibiotic is applied to the DNA bits that didn’t “take” in order to kill off the latter. The previously introduced antibiotic resistance helps keep the absorbed DNA bits alive. This antibiotic resistance remains forever in the crop.
6. Technicians grow the cells into full plants, and then study them in more traditional ways to confirm that they have the desirable traits. The gene gun has no control as to where on the plant’s various chromosomes the new DNA inserts itself. Scientists assume that if the DNA landed in a bad place they’ll find out during the growing stage because the plant will show ill effects. These plants are discarded.
How is GE different from selective breeding?
Proponents of GE technology often claim that GE does the same thing that plant breeders have done for thousands of years. Proponents call both processes “gene enhancement” and say GE merely selects traits with more control than we ever had in the past. The most important difference between GE and selective breeding involves the difference between genes and alleles. Selective breeding involves crossing two different members of the same species. In this case, both original plants have the same genes. The breeder tries to combine a particular allele from one parent (e.g. color) with the desirable alleles of the other parent (e.g. height). If the wrong alleles combine (e.g. unwanted color with unwanted height), the breeder keeps trying. But the chromosomes maintain their integrity. The process of combining involves normal sexual reproduction, which is a mechanism that has evolved over millions of years. Conventional breeding avoids disrupting the basic functions of the plant. GE, on the other hand, adds a completely new function when it adds new genes from other species. Dr. Michael Antoniou, senior lecturer in molecular biology and experimental pathology at King’s College London, with 17 years experience in the use of genetic engineering, wrote: “The totally artificial nature of GE does not automatically make it dangerous. It is the imprecision in the manner by which genes are combined and the unpredictability in how the introduced gene will interact within its new environment which results in uncertainty. The balanced gene functions that have evolved together and which are preserved with traditional methods, are lost with GE… The manner in which GE animals and plants are produced always selects for the splicing of the foreign gene into regions of the host DNA where other natural genes are trying to work. Given the interdependence of gene function within any grouping of genes, this random splicing of the foreign gene into the host DNA will always result in a disruption in the normal genetic order. Therefore, GE of animals and especially of plants always results in a loss, to a lesser or greater degree, of the tight genetic control and balanced functioning which is retained through conventional cross breeding.” Some biological and ecological dangers of GE The overarching danger is the introduction of unexpected side effects at a genetic level, a phenomenon that scientists have labeled pleiotropy. Pleiotropic effects are by their nature unpredictable. These effects can happen in one of two main ways: either the gene that was clipped out from the source organism actually does more than was expected or desired, or that gene when added to your target organism combines with the other genes already there to do more than desired. For example, scientists trying to make red petunia flowers engineered a red gene from corn with white petunia flowers. They did get red petunias, but those red petunias also had more leaves and lowered fertility, which was completely unexpected by the scientists; who still don’t know exactly why. Similarly, a GE effort to make faster growing salmon made faster growing green salmon, and again, the scientists could not explain where the green came from. Scientists are coming to understand that genes are not independent bundles of function. They are highly interdependent with the other genes that make up the total organism, creating what Dr. Antoniou described as “gene balance.” Scientists do not yet understand how that balance works. There is immense potential risk to human beings and to the ecosystem in commercializing the products of GE without first understanding gene balance.
Risks
Below are some specific biological and ecological risks from GE that are either expected or already documented: 1. The unexpected effects of GE could create or introduce allergens or other toxins. Many plants, like tomatoes, have the ability to create substances that are very toxic to humans, but which have been bred out of them by centuries of selective breeding. “Bred out of them” may just mean “made the gene inactive,” whereas the engineered gene could turn one of these toxin–creating genes back on. Since we don’t know where on the chromosome the inactive toxin gene is, and we don’t control where the new gene goes, this possibility is completely out of the engineer’s control. Also, the transferred gene itself may carry a human allergen in it. For instance, an early attempt to transfer a desirable trait of brazil nuts to another food accidentally transferred the brazil nut allergen. Many people are allergic to brazil nuts. The researchers discovered it only very late in the testing process and had to kill that product. The brazil nut allergen was known and could be tested for. But scientists are now looking at transferring genes from organisms which are not foods into food crops. Thus, there is simply no way of knowing — until they’re actually in the food supply — whether these new genes will be allergens to some proportion of the population.
2. The gene may affect the nutritional quality of food. There are already controversial studies being done on GE soybeans which are now being grown extensively in the US. Some studies show that some GE soybeans have less phytoestrogens than regular soybeans. Phytoestrogens are considered useful in counteracting cancer. Some biotech–industry studies dispute the negative studies. One problem is that the government did not test for nutritional content before permitting large scale commercialization of these products.
3. Another risk to humans is the possible increase in exposure to pesticides from the agricultural practices that are changed by GE products. Close to 80% of GE crops now in fields in the US are specifically engineered for resistance to herbicides. An herbicide kills plants, so people usually don’t consume much herbicide on their food, since spraying it on the food would have killed the crop. When crops become immune to herbicide through genetic engineering, however, farmers can spray much more herbicide directly on the edible crop. Thus, the herbicide will enter the human food supply as never before. Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide is at the heart of this issue because there is increasing scientific data suggesting that consumption of Roundup can cause non–Hodgkins lymphoma (a type of cancer), depressed immune system, and a near fatal condition called toxic pneumonitis.
4. GE plants may be considered non–indigenous plants: they did not evolve their characteristics in synchronization with the other organisms of the local ecosystem. Humans have learned the hard lesson — e.g. from snakes in Guam to kudzu in the Deep South — that introducing non–indigenous organisms can have very unexpected and very negative effects on the environment. GE plants pose a special risk because many of the traits being engineered into these plants convey extra survivability that would help them overcompete in the wild, for instance through insect resistance or cold resistance. This risk might come from the GE crop itself escaping from the farm to become a weed. Or it could come from the pollen of the crop being crossed by Mother Nature’s pollinators with weedy local relatives to create superweeds.
5. GE poses a risk to beneficial organisms in the ecosystem. Research indicates that Monarch butterflies are harmed by GE corn, and lacewings and ladybugs (which serve an important ecological function both for farmers and in the wild) are harmed by specific GE products now used extensively in the Corn Belt. 6. Another risk is that of gene pollution to neighboring farms. So far, three cases have been documented in which GE pollen has blown to organic or non–GE farms, and pollinated and tainted the latters’ crops.
7. GE risks the loss of a valuable organic pest control tool: the naturally occurring bacteria, bacillus thurengiensis (Bt). Bt’s ability to kill crop pests like the cotton boll weevil, European core borer, and cucumber and squash beetles — while not killing beneficial insects like bees, nor affecting the plant at all — makes Bt valuable to farmers. Organic farmers and gardeners have been using Bt for decades to control these pests. Because Bt lasts only a few days on plants outside, farmers have used it only when they actually see the pests, and spray in limited amounts to control them. Organic farmers in particular are concerned about insects building up resistance, and have followed a kind of ethical code to use Bt judiciously, as it represents the only organic treatment for some of these crop–killing pests. This kind of limited use has meant virtually no serious resistance developed over several decades of use. However, instead of inventing their own means of killing pests like the corn borer and cotton boll weevil, GE scientists have co–opted Bt. Since no one owned Bt, no one could stop them. They engineered the “active ingredient” of Bt directly into crops, especially corn and cotton. This 100%–present use guarantees that insect resistance will build quickly, after which Bt itself, as well as seeds engineered with Bt, will become useless to everyone. Scientists argue about how long it will take for Bt to lose its effectiveness. The biotech industry claims 10 years, but recent studies indicate an even faster loss. When Bt’s effectiveness is lost, it is lost forever, and thousands of organic farmers whose livelihoods depend on these crops will have no defense against these pests. The two sides also argue over plans for setting aside “refuges” to slow down (but not prevent) the inevitable loss of resistance. Recent studies indicate that the assumptions on which the biotech industry made its calculations on the rate of development of resistance — and on which the USDA approved Bt–engineered products and refuge plans — are turning out to be flawed. Some assumptions involved how long Bt–resistant pests vs. non–resistant pests require to reach maturity, and whether the pest’s resistance is a dominant or recessive trait. (see Nature Aug 5, 1999, “Bollworms, Genes and Ecologists,” by M. J. Crawley.) Global and economic impacts GE poses complex economic risks, because a very small group of companies are gaining control over the most important food crops of the world. The top three conventional seed corporations (Dupont/Pioneer, Monsanto, and Novartis) also constitute two of the top three GE seed marketers. These same three companies are among the top five agri–chemical, pesticide and herbicide sellers world–wide. By the end of 1998, Monsanto controlled 87% of the US cotton seed market, and now grows 88% of all GE seed. Four companies (DuPont/Pioneer, Monsanto, Novartis, and Dow) control 69% of the North American corn seed market and at least 47% of the commercial soybean seed market. The top five vegetable seed companies control 75% of the global vegetable seed market. These companies can use their leverage to pressure farmers — especially farmers in poor countries dependent on IMF or private microcredit loans — into purchasing these companies’ GE crops and chemicals. Farmers have experienced that kind of pressure already with the Green Revolution. Monsanto recently came close to an exclusive deal with Grameen Bank, which extends microcredit loans in third world countries. Farmers rely heavily on loans, since they have a lot of up–front costs in the spring and no income until harvest in the fall. Thus, an exclusive deal between Monsanto and Grameen would be very strong leverage in favor of Monsanto. Seed companies are working to engineer, into the plants themselves, the control technology that would force farmers to keep buying the company’s seeds instead of saving their own seeds from each harvest. Due to public outrage, Monsanto now says it won’t use the Terminator Technology, which it will own if its proposed purchase of Delta Pine and Land Co. is accepted by the Federal Trade Commission. But the big seed companies are now working on a related technology, dubbed “Traitor genes,” in which the seed won’t germinate unless a new chemical is sprayed on them. This technology would, again, deny farmers any benefit from saving seeds. The companies say that farmers can always choose not to buy the GE seeds if they aren’t to the farmer’s advantage. But it’s not that easy. If your neighbor sprays Roundup over his farm, the drift will kill your crop unless yours is also genetically engineered to survive Roundup. This has already happened. This kind of problem in combination with the possible restrictions on loans, the loss of Bt as a tool for organic farmers, control by the same companies over the conventional seed market, and the genetic pollution referred to earlier, make a mockery of the idea that farmers can choose. Labeling and Regulation A rational and efficient market assumes that consumers make informed choices. However, without labeling which food is or is not genetically engineered, consumers cannot make informed choices. The issue of labeling also involves the basic right of people to know what they’re eating, whether or not it poses any known risks. In addition, as pointed out by molecular biologist and cancer researcher, Dr. John Fagan, “without labeling, it will be very difficult for scientists to trace the source of new illness caused by genetically engineered food.” GE companies have fought to prevent labeling by arguing that organic growers will benefit the most from labeling and therefore should bear the additional cost of labeling. However, the primary issue involves consumer information and choice, not the cost of labeling. In fact, organic and non–GE producers would be glad to pay for labeling, but are currently denied even the right to label their own food, under threat of lawsuit by certain GE companies. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are theoretically charged with regulating food in the US. However, because of documented instances of agency employees going to work for GE companies they were regulating immediately before and/or after their stint in government, the regulatory agencies are just as likely to promote as to regulate GE food. All ecological safety testing is done by the companies. Government agencies provide no raw data oversight. Once a product gains commercial approval, government oversight largely ends. Regarding the regulation of food safety, in 1992 the FDA issued a controversial policy that genetically engineered foods are “substantially equivalent” to conventional foods, and thus do not have to be labeled or safety tested prior to entering the marketplace. So far, every single GE product has been granted this status and no toxicological or nutrition tests have been done by the US government. A recent article in the journal Nature addressed this policy as follows: “The concept of substantial equivalence has never been properly defined; the degree of difference between a natural food and its Genetically Modified (GM) alternative before its ‘substance’ ceases to be acceptably ‘equivalent’ is not defined anywhere, nor has an exact definition been agreed by legislators. … Substantial equivalence is a pseudo–scientific concept because it is a commercial and political judgment masquerading as if it were scientific. It is, moreover, inherently anti–scientific because it was created primarily to provide an excuse for not requiring biochemical or toxicological tests. It therefore serves to discourage and inhibit potentially informative scientific research.” Regarding the validity of the testing that the agencies do require, current US government policy is that once a product is approved for commercial release based on small test plots, no further oversight is done. However, Philip Regal, a molecular ecologist at the University of Minnesota, implies that even the limited testing that agencies require is inadequate: “Small field populations of genetically engineered organisms (GEOs) can provide valuable data to help make decisions about widespread commercial releases. But one cannot claim that since plants in small confined and ecologically irrelevant field plots, plots used largely to study commercial features, have not ‘caused problems’ or have not ‘caused surprises’ then it will be safe to truly release any transgenic forms commercially. For example, ‘no adverse consequences have resulted from work in more than fifteen years in laboratories and in over 500 field releases’ (Casper & Landsmann 1992, p. xiii). The term ‘releases’ is completely misleading. These were largely not scientific tests of realistic ecological concerns. It is hard even to imagine a case where one might have concerns that ecological problems might arise from widespread release, and where one would expect to see ‘problems’ by simple inspection of field plots, especially if they contained no potential native competitors. After all, ecological problems are only apt to occur within the context of biological and physical interactions that take place on natural soils and within a natural community of competitors. Yet this sort of non–data on nonreleases has been cited in policy circles as though 500 true releases have now informed scientists that there are no legitimate scientific concerns.” Is GE a solution for world hunger? The risks of GE could be outweighed if GE could relieve overwhelming human suffering. But evidence may actually point in the other direction. The quantity of food is not currently the cause of world hunger. An estimated 800 million people starve or are severely malnourished now. According to the United Nations’ World Food Programme, however, the world currently produces one–and–a–half times the amount required to provide everyone with a nutritious and adequate diet. In response to claims by Monsanto that GM crops will help feed the world’s growing population, 24 leading African agriculturists and environmental scientists representing their countries at the UN wrote: “We do not believe that such companies or gene technologies will help our farmers to produce the food that is needed in the 21st century. On the contrary, we think it will destroy the diversity, the local knowledge, and the sustainable agricultural systems that our farmers have developed for millennia and that it will thus undermine our capacity to feed ourselves.” In response to a comment in late 1997 by a British scientist who claimed that those who want GE crops banned are undermining the position of starving people in Ethiopia, Tewolde Egziabher of the Institute of Sustainable Development in Addis Ababa, said: “There are still hungry people in Ethiopia, but they are hungry because they have no money, no longer because there is no food to buy. We strongly resent the abuse of our poverty to sway the interests of the European public.” On the other hand, socio–economic factors seem to have more impact on world hunger than does the quantity of food produced. On June 30, 1999, the World Food Programme cited a recent study showing that improvements in women’s education have accounted for 44 % of the reduction in child malnutrition over the past 25 years. When women’s status also improved, the percentage increased to over 50%. To the extent that third–world farmers become dependent on buying seeds, pesticides, and fertilizers from multi–national corporations, and depend on selling their produce to first–world consumers, they may not be able to feed their own families. GE proponents try to justify the use of short–term technology, like Bt(which will be useless within 10 years) as a way to feed the world population in 2050. Proponents are rushing GE products into our food supply without adequate safety and nutrition testing and far in advance of the claimed need. Also, despite claims made for the technology’s potential to increase agricultural yields, the evidence for this is very weak and is contradicted by other evidence that GE crops give lower yields. In conclusion, the following quotes provide a reminder of the biological and economic risks to consumers inherent in the current commercialization of GE food. Robert Shapiro, Chief Executive of Monsanto, (SWF News interview, San Francisco, 27 October 1998): “But we realize that with any new and powerful technology with unknown, and to some degree unknowable — by definition — effects, then there necessarily will be an appropriate level at least, and maybe even more than that, of public debate and public interest.” Phil Angell, Monsanto’s director of corporate communications, in an interview with the New York Times Sunday Magazine: “Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the F.D.A’s job.” Finally, from one of the co–discoverers of the structure of DNA, Dr. James D. Watson: “This [genetic engineering] is a matter far too important to be left solely in the hands of the scientific and medical communities. The belief that…science always moves forward represents a form of laissez–faire nonsense dismally reminiscent of the credo that American business if left to itself will solve everybody’s problems. Success of a corporate body in making money need not set the human condition ahead.”