| Genetically
Engineered Crops and Foods: October 2001
The following is a local
mirror of the text of the PANNA GE introduction.
If you want pictures
and links that come with the original presentation, please visit
PANNA at this link.
Widespread public opposition is making
genetically engineered crops and foods a highly
controversial issue. What's all the fuss?
In a nutshell, the big
agricultural
biotechnology
corporations are
commercializing
genetically altered
crops and foods;
creating
unprecedented risks
to health, the
environment and conventional and organic
farmers;
misleading the public about benefits and
safety; and
getting away with it because of inadequate
regulation, entailing the near complete
violation of consumers' right-to-know.
This presentation provides a brief but
comprehensive overview of these far-reaching
issues.
What are genetically engineered crops
and foods?
Genetically engineered crops are plants with
DNA {Definition} in which bioengineers have
inserted one or more genes. Genetically
engineered foods contain ingredients made from
Genetically engineered crops or other uses of
genetic engineering.
Genes are templates that cells use to
create proteins, which determine many
of an organism's characteristics.
Changing an organism's genes,
therefore, can cause its cells to make new
proteins, causing it to exhibit a new trait.
For example, a gene that makes a fish resistant
to cold, can make a tomato plant create proteins
which may similarly give it greater resistance to
cold temperatures.
Genetic engineering versus traditional
breeding
Traditional breeding is another way of getting
genes into an organism to cause it to exhibit a
new trait. Although the biotechnology industry
would have you believe that genetic engineering
is just like traditional breeding, it is radically
different.
In traditional breeding, members of
the same or very similar species are
crossed to create offspring with some
novel trait. This greatly limits the
genes that can be combined. Furthermore, when
different but similar species are crossed, their
offspring are generally infertile -- preventing
inter-species gene combinations from
propagating in the wild. For example, a donkey
and a mare can make a mule, but the mule will
be infertile, the end of the line for the combined
genes.
Genetic
engineering smashes these
natural barriers! Using gene
insertion, any gene from
any plant, animal,
bacterium, fungus or virus
can be inserted into the DNA in reproductive
cells of any other organism. If the resulting
organism survives, it generally can pass on its
altered DNA, along with and new traits, through
normal reproduction. For example, genetic
engineering enables scientists to create pigs
which have human genes, genes which will be
passed on to future generations.
Inherent danger
Since an organism's genes serve as templates to
create proteins, which determine many of the
organism's characteristics, new genes are
inserted into an organism's DNA so that it
produces novel proteins and novel
characteristics. The inherent danger in creating
crops and foods in this way is that these novel
proteins may easily have unforeseeable
consequences
The likelihood of
unforeseeable consequences is
exacerbated by the fact that
gene insertion is actually
wildly imprecise. Scientists
cannot determine where, or
how many, genes end up in a
host organism's DNA. This
random insertion of genes can
create proteins that have never
existed before in nature. It can
also inactivate existing genes
(preventing them from expressing a normal
protein) or activate inactive genes (creating
proteins that normally are not expressed).
Environmental scientists discovered decades
after their introduction that synthetic pesticides
such as DDT (which do not exist in nature)
caused widespread harm to people and the
environment. {Note} Genetically engineered
foods (which contain proteins that do not exist
in nature) may prove to have similar
unpredictable impacts. As Richard Lacey,
microbiologist, medical doctor, and Professor
of Food Safety at Leeds University said, "The
fact is, it is virtually impossible to even
conceive of a testing procedure to assess the
health effects of genetically engineered foods."
{Source}
The fundamental uncertainty
involved in creating new genetic
combinations that spread to future
generations is raising profound
objections. Nobel laureate and
Harvard professor emeritus in
biology Dr. George Wald put it
this way: "Our morality up to now has been to
go ahead without restriction to learn all that we
can about nature. Restructuring nature was not
part of the bargain."
Genetic engineering applications
So how is the industry applying genetic
engineering to crops and foods? The most
common uses are:
Herbicide-tolerant crops.
These are crops engineered
to tolerate a weed killer so
that it can be applied without
harming the crop. For
example, Monsanto sells
Roundup Ready® crops,
which have been engineered to tolerate its
Roundup herbicide (glyphosate).
Herbicide-tolerant crops account for about 74%
of all genetically engineered crops. {Source}
Pesticide crops. Pesticide crops
are engineered to produce a
pesticide inside the plant. For
example, Bt corn contains a toxin
normally produced by the Bacillus
thuringiensis bacterium. {Note} These crops
account for about 19% of all genetically
engineered crops. {Source}
There are also crops that are herbicide-tolerant
and produce pesticide. These account for about
7% of all genetically engineered crops.
{Source}
Less prevalent applications of genetic
engineering include:
Production chemicals. Some
genetically engineered products
are chemicals used in food
production. For example, more than 30% of
U.S. dairy cows are injected with recombinant
bovine growth hormone (rBGH) to increase
their milk production and the genetically
engineered enzyme chymogen is used in 60% of
U.S. cheese production. {Source}
Virus-resistant crops. Some crops
are genetically engineered to resist
viruses (for example, genetically
engineered squash and papaya).
Applications of genetic engineering currently
under development include:
Use-restriction
crops. Under
development are
crops that limit their own use. For example,
so-called "Terminator" seeds grow "normally,"
but produce sterile seeds, forcing farmers to buy
new seed every year, instead of being able to
save, share and breed them.
Genetically engineered animals.
Some production animals are
genetically engineered for some
"advantageous" trait. For example,
under development are Atlantic Salmon that are
engineered to use more of their own growth
hormone so that they grow faster.
"Pharming." Biotech companies are also
engineering animals to produce pharmaceutical
drugs in their milk, urine, blood, sperm or eggs,
or to grow organs for transplantation. For
example, sheep, pigs, goats, cows and chickens
have been engineered as industrial drug
factories (or "bioreactors.") {Source}
Added nutrients. Also under development are
foods that have additional nutritional value. For
example, so-called "golden rice" contains extra
beta-carotene, the precursor to vitamin A,
which can be beneficial to those with vitamin A
deficiency.
Genetically engineered crops and foods
now on the market
Although the first genetically engineered crops
hit the market only in 1994, genetically
engineered foods are now widespread. Chances
are you are already buying genetically
engineered foods. Without mandatory labeling,
however, you can't really tell.
About 16% of U.S. cropland is
planted with genetically
engineered crops, {Source}
making the U.S. by far the world's
largest producer. {Note} In 2000,
about 75% of U.S. soybeans, 25%
of corn and 72% of cotton were
genetically engineered varieties.
{Source} There are also
genetically engineered canola,
potatoes, squash, tomatoes, and
other crops.
Many food
products contain
soy, corn,
cottonseed or
canola -- or
common soy and
corn derivatives such as lecithin,
soy oil, soy proteins, corn syrup
and cornstarch. The food industry
estimates that more than 60% of
all non-organic processed foods
sold in U.S. supermarkets contain
genetically engineered
ingredients. {Source}
Some of the foods that have tested
positive include infant formula,
tortilla chips, soy burgers, bacon
flavor bits, taco shells and corn
muffin mix. {Source}{Note}
Many more genetically engineered foods are on
the way! Approvals have been granted for
thousands of new field trials of genetically
modified plants. {Source} Foods being readied
for market include: genetically engineered fish
and seafood, lettuce, peppers, melons, peas,
rice, wheat, strawberries, raspberries,
pineapples, bananas, apples and pigs.
Industry's claims
Facing growing consumer
resistance, the
biotechnology industry now
touts genetically engineered foods as a panacea
for all kinds of problems. It has at times even
claimed that they will solve world hunger, make
agriculture sustainable, turn things around for
struggling farmers, eliminate pesticide use and
wipeout disease through enhanced nutrition.
One after another, however,
these claims ring hollow.
Consider hunger. There is
little evidence to support the
claim that genetically
engineered crops have higher
yields. Even if they did,
however, hunger has little to
do with the overall volume of
food produced. The United Nations Food
Programme reports that there is enough food
produced worldwide to feed everyone one and
a half times over. {Source} Amid plenty, about
36 million people in the U.S. in 1998, nearly
40% of them children, did not have access to
enough food. {Source} Clearly, hunger is
therefore a matter of poverty and access to
resources, not simple abundance.
The public relations onslaught
To advance its claims about genetically
engineered crops, Monsanto, DuPont, Novartis
(now part of Syngenta), Dow, Aventis and other
major biotechnology companies are spending
heavily on public relations. For example, they
launched one U.S. public relations (PR)
campaign for $52 million.
The campaign is directed by
BSMG Worldwide (recently
purchased by Weber
Shandwick), a major PR
player with clients such as
Philip Morris, Microsoft and
the Chemical Manufacturers
Association. BSMG
advertised its special skills in
"crisis management," "technology PR" and
"express[ing] an industry viewpoint" with
"powerful, emotionally resonant messages."
Modern public relations entails manipulative
advertising and big money lobbying--it has little
to do with truth or democracy.
Profit frenzy
The biotechnology industry is making
unsubstantiated claims and spending millions on
public relations because genetic engineering is
highly profitable for them. It offers nothing less
than a new frontier for investment and
commercialization.
Since 1980, when
the U.S. Supreme
Court ruled that a
corporation could
patent a genetically
engineered organism, the industry has invested
more than $20 billion in genetic engineering
ventures. {Source} Now these investments are
starting to show significant returns. Revenues
for genetically engineered crop products have
grown like weeds: Sales grew from an
estimated US$75 million in 1995 to an
estimated whopping $2.1 to 2.3 billion in 1999.
{Source}
The drive for profit has
resulted in countless
cases of extraordinary
harm. In one remarkable
case, negligent corporate
practices by Union
Carbide's chemical plant
in Bhopal, India, resulted
in a 1984 chemical leak
causing at least 16,000
deaths and hundreds of thousands of injuries and
illnesses. {Source} In 1999, Union Carbide
merged with biotechnology giant Dow
Chemical. Corporate profiteering has played a
decisive role in the crises of ozone depletion,
air pollution, acid rain, pollution of rivers,
lakes and ground water, depletion of fisheries,
loss of soil productivity, forest destruction and
the irreversible loss of species, as well as an
astounding range of human injury and disease.
Impacts!
Genetically engineered crops and foods pose
profound risks to human health and the
environment. They also have serious impacts on
agriculture, farmers, rural communities and the
organic foods movement.
While assessing these potential
(and in some cases already
demonstrated) impacts, it is
important to keep in mind that
industrial practices are not
"innocent until proven guilty."
Whereas the biotechnology industry demands
that its opponents must provide conclusive
proof of serious harm, food safety advocates
around the world say the burden of proof should
be on the industry to demonstrate conclusively
that genetically engineered foods are safe.
According to this principle, when facing
uncertainty about serious harm, precaution, not
profit, should rule.
Health impacts
Many health professionals around the world
have sounded the alarm on genetically
engineered foods. The British Medical
Association, for example, has called for an
indefinite moratorium on genetically engineered
foods. {Source} The health hazards of
genetically engineered foods include:
Allergens. The novel proteins in
genetically engineered foods can
cause unexpected allergic reactions.
For example, in 1996 researchers
found that soybeans engineered by Pioneer
Hi-Bred with a gene from a Brazil nut could
cause potentially fatal allergic reactions in
those with Brazil nut allergies. In this case,
researchers knew to look for the common Brazil
nut allergy reaction, but testing for unexpected
allergens is exceedingly difficult and would be
tremendously expensive. {More}
Toxins. Genetically engineered foods
may have toxic effects. For example,
Monsanto's genetically engineered (or
recombinant) bovine growth hormone
(rBGH) is used in milk production,
where it raises the level of
Insulin-like Growth Factor-1 (IGF-1).
Studies suggest that people with elevated levels
of IGF-1 are more likely to get prostate cancer
{Source}, breast cancer {Source} and lung
cancer {Source} than those with normal levels.
{Note} Genetically engineered potatoes were
found to weaken rats' immune systems and
adversely affect their kidneys, thymuses,
spleens, guts and brains. {Source} Another
study found a genetically engineered yeast
significantly more toxic than the non-genetically
engineered strain. {More}
Antibiotic resistance. For
technical reasons having to do with
the imprecise nature of gene
insertion, most genetically
engineered organisms are also
given a gene conferring resistance
to antibiotics. {More} Although these antibiotic
resistance genes are only used early in the
process, they generally remain fully functional
in the host organism. According to the Union of
Concerned Scientists, when eaten, these foods
could reduce the effectiveness of antibiotics to
fight disease when taken with meals. Another
danger is that, although unlikely, it is possible
that antibiotic resistance could be passed to
dangerous microbes, exacerbating the current
crisis of antibiotic resistant infection. {Source}
Nutrition. There is evidence that some
genetically engineered foods have reduced
nutritional quality. For example, a 1999 study
found that beneficial phytoestrogen compounds
(believed to protect against heart disease and
cancer) were lower in some genetically
engineered soybeans.
Environmental impacts
Many scientists are becoming increasingly
worried about the environmental impacts of
genetically engineered crops. These impacts
include:
Pesticide use. Despite
biotechnology industry PR
about eliminating pesticides,
virtually all genetically
engineered crops are either
designed to work in concert
with conventional pesticides
or to themselves contain pesticides. The overall
impact of these systems on pesticide use is still
unclear, but for some crops the result is clearly
an increase in the amount or potency of
pesticide use. In general, industrial pesticide
use causes the development of resistance in
pests, which requires the use of more or more
potent pesticides. Whether the pesticides are
outside or inside of the plant, genetically
engineered crops involve this same spiral of
environmental toxins. In fact, because plants
engineered to contain pesticides constantly
expose pests to toxins, the development of
resistance is accelerated, squandering the
valuable susceptibility characteristics of pests.
Harm to wildlife and soil
organisms. The toxins in
genetically engineered
crops can harm beneficial
and other non-target insects
and soil organisms. Bt
crops, for example, may harm bees {Source},
lacewings {Source} and monarch butterflies
{Source}. These harms have not been fully
investigated.
Invasive species. The natural
passing of genetically
engineered traits from
cultivated to wild organisms
can make species become
invasive. For example, the
pollen of genetically engineered crops can
travel long distances, where it can transfer its
modified DNA to wild relatives. {Note} In fact,
two kinds of herbicide-tolerant genetically
engineered canola passed their weed-killer
resistance to nearby volunteer canola plants,
considered by many to be a weed. Super
fast-growing genetically engineered Atlantic
Salmon now under development could cause
extinction of wild salmon if they were to escape
into the wild {Note}--an event which many
consider inevitable. Such "genetic pollution" is
impossible to reverse.
Development of new or worse viruses.
Scientist are concerned that crops
engineered to resist viruses can cause
the target viruses to mutate into more virulent
forms or enable them to infect a wider range of
plants and animals. {Source}
Loss of biodiversity.
Biodiversity, the variety of living
things, is vitally important for
healthy ecosystems. For example,
the more diverse an agricultural
region, the more that region is able to
accommodate challenges from pests, disease or
climate change. Yet the UN Food and
Agricultural Organization estimates that 75% of
the genetic diversity in agriculture present at the
beginning of this century has been lost.
{Source}
Genetically engineered crops erode
biodiversity. This happens because the
biotechnology industry fosters the widespread
adoption of only a relatively small number of
commercially successful varieties. {Note}
Genetic engineering also has the potential to
undermine biodiversity by creating invasive
species that out-compete native ones. In the
U.S., 42% of the species which are threatened
or endangered are at risk primarily due to
non-indigenous species.
Impacts on agriculture and farmers
Genetically engineered crops and foods pose
serious risks to health and the environment, but
they also mean trouble for all kinds of farmers.
These problems include:
Loss of
markets. As
consumers
around the
world
increasingly
say no to
genetically
engineered
foods, farmers are losing markets, and are
forced to bear the financial and logistical
burdens of testing and segregating crops. In
1996, U.S. farmers sold $3 billion worth of
corn and soybeans to Europe. In 1999, those
exports had shrunk to $1 billion. {Source} In
fact, the European Union has enacted a
moratorium on importing new biotech food
products. {Source} And Japan's new labeling
law will no doubt have enormous ramifications
for its $3 billion in imports of corn and
soybeans from the U.S. Midwest. {Source}
Crop contamination. Even
growers who do not plant
genetically engineered crops
may face market problems from
possible contamination by
nearby genetically engineered
crops (via pollen) and from accidental
co-mingling of seeds. For example, organic
cornchip maker Terra Prima lost $87,000 when
its European exports were returned after they
tested positive for genetically engineered
ingredients. The organic corn of one of the
company's suppliers had been contaminated by
a neighboring farmer's genetically engineered
corn. {Source}
Loss of natural pesticides. In their
natural forms, Bt-based products
are natural, organic-approved
biopesticides. Genetically
engineered Bt-crops, however, are
very different. Their ever-present
toxicity is rapidly accelerating the
onset of pest resistance to this valuable pest
management tool. It is estimated that within five
to ten years, current Bt biopesticides will no
longer work. Both conventional and organic
growers use these low-impact products. In fact,
about 67% of U.S. organic farmers use them, at
least as a last recourse {Source} and would
thus face a serious pest management crisis if
they were no longer effective.
Loss of independence. Genetically engineered
crops extend agribusiness's control over seeds,
and therefore its control over farmers.
Worldwide, about 1.4 billion farmers save
seeds, {Source} freely replanting, trading and
sharing them, as well as breeding them to create
strains that are well suited to local conditions.
Building on the commercialization of modern
hybrids, which produce unsuitable seeds and
thus require farmers to purchase new seed every
year, genetically engineered crops entail
far-reaching restrictions on farmers' use of
seeds.
Genetically
engineered
seeds are
licensed, not
owned,
generally for one season. The farmer can eat or
sell the harvest, but cannot use the seeds
produced by the crop. In fact, Monsanto has
brought legal action against hundreds of farmers
to assert its control over how seeds are used.
Technology under development will soon allow
these restrictions to be enforced biologically.
For example, "Terminator" seeds are
intentionally engineered to give rise to plants
that produce sterile seeds. So-called "Traitor"
seeds require that external chemicals be
purchased and applied to "turn on" or "turn off"
certain traits. These restriction technologies are
sparking outrage from farmers around the
world. Whereas the genetics of crops has been
stewarded by farmers for 10,000 to 12,000
years, selection of traits is now increasingly in
the hands of biotechnology companies alone.
Higher costs. Growing genetically engineered
|