SAFETY RISKS OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED CROPS
By Dr. Kate Clinch-Jones, B.M., B.S.
Genetically engineered (GE) food ingredients first reached Australian
supermarket shelves in 1996, and may be present in many processed
foods. However, most remain unlabelled due to the looseness of labeling
regulations.
Cotton genetically engineered to be herbicide and/or insect-resistant,
and a few varieties of carnations are currently the only GE plants to
be commercially grown in Australia. However, a wide range of GE crops
have been field trialled in multiple locations. Commercial release of
GE canola has been approved for commercial release by the Office of the
Gene Technology Regulator, but planting of commercial crops have been
blocked by a number of State-based moratoria.
Increasingly, doctors and scientists are issuing warnings that GE foods
and crops pose serious risks to human health and the environment.
Independent reviews of the safety assessments of GE foods show that
these assessments have been grossly inadequate, and are based on the
untested and potentially dangerous assumption that GE foods are
essentially the same as conventional foods, and therefore do not
require testing.
Internationally, many consumers, notably in the EU and Japan, are
heeding these warnings, and rejecting GE foods. This is having an
adverse effect on many farmers, notably in Canada and the U.S.A., who
planted GE crops in good faith, or worse, experienced accidental
contamination of their conventional crops, and find it hard to sell
them.
WHAT IS GENETIC ENGINEERING?
Genetic engineering is a process to incorporate foreign DNA into a
living host with the intention of permanently altering the host in a
commercially advantageous way. This process is complicated by the fact
that the actual function of most DNA is not known. It is also
complicated by the fact that genetic engineering, by its very nature is
imprecise, and the new DNA is randomly inserted into the host. One
method of genetic modification is to coat tiny tungsten balls with the
desired genes and fire them at a one-cell thickness of tissue culture.
Another is to use a plant parasite to break down the cells’ defences
and allow entry of the new DNA. Clearly, these methods do not direct
the point of insertion, or number of copies of the foreign genes, or
even if they are taken up at all. Consequently, marker genes are
simultaneously incorporated, to date usually bacterial genes for
antibiotic resistance, so that treated cells can be treated with high
doses of antibiotic, and any cells that do not die must, by definition,
also have taken up the desired gene(s). Further, it is necessary to
incorporate ‘gene switches’, or DNA prompter sequences, to ensure that
the new gene(s) will function in the host, by again over-riding normal
cellular control mechanisms. In the majority of cases, these gene
switches come from the cauliflower mosaic virus, a para retro virus
related to the human hepatitis B virus.
Thus, genetically engineered products can contain a number of different
genes and gene constructs. For example, GE soy includes a microbial
gene to confer resistance to the herbicide glyphosate (Round Up), a
gene for antibiotic resistance, a petunia gene and DNA from the
cauliflower mosaic virus.
It is very clear that, despite the claims of proponents that genetic
engineering is just a natural progression from traditional selective
breeding, it is neither natural, nor in any way similar to conventional
breeding.
WHAT GENETICALLY ENGINEERED
FOODS/CROPS ARE AVAILABLE?
Most GE crops on the market to date are herbicide- resistant, that is
able to survive being sprayed with weed-killer. Many are engineered to
produce their own insecticide, from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt, Dipel).
Increasingly, crops are engineered to be both herbicide- and insect-
resistant.
Crops are also appearing with engineered sterility, that is unable to
set viable seed unless specifically hybridized with a restorer plant.
The biotech industry uses the euphemism ‘fertility controlled’, but the
lay public calls it ‘Terminator Technology’.
Some crops are engineered for longer shelf-life, virus resistance or
easier processing characteristics.
Trees are being engineered to grow faster, with the aim of cashing in
on carbon credits, and to have softer cell walls to make paper
manufacture easier. Many of theses trees are herbicide-, and
insect-resistant, and Terminator for good measure.
Genetically engineered foods currently approved in Australia include:
1.
SOYBEAN. Present in soy products such as soymilks and tofu, and in
processed forms such as soy protein, soy flour, soy or vegetable oils,
protein isolates and lecithin, and various food additives and
processing aids. In its various guises, soy is found in some 70% of
supermarket lines, including bread, breakfast cereals, processed meats,
salad dressings, ice-cream and baby foods.
2.
CORN/MAIZE. Present as corn flour, cornstarch or corn oil, corn
protein, corn syrup, glucose syrup, maltodextrin, dextrose and modified
starches and other additives. Once again widely present in processed
foods.
3.
COTTON. Cottonseed oil, in baked goods, oils and margarines. Also as
linters, or thickening agents.
4.
CANOLA. Present as canola oil and lecithin in many processed foods,
baked goods and margarines.
5.
SUGARBEET. Sugar and MSG.
6.
BACTERIAL STARTER CULTURES AND ENZYMES.
7.
FUNGAL ENZYMES. (Aspergillus sp.) Used in bread, beer and fruit juices.
8.
POTATO. In potato starch and modified starch – not as fresh potatoes at
this stage.
(Source, ANZFA.)
WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS CLAIMED FOR GE
CROPS?
Proponents of biotechnology claim that genetically engineered crops
will produce higher yields, reduce reliance on agricultural chemicals
resulting in environmental benefits, produce more nutritious foods, and
solve Third World starvation.
It is worthwhile to subject these claims to scrutiny.
PRODUCTIVITY OF GE CROPS
Independent University tests and many farmers’ experiences show that
there can, in fact be significantly lower yields associated with a wide
range of GE crops.
In 1997, 30 000 acres of herbicide-resistant cotton failed in
Mississippi. Some growers faced losses of half to one million dollars
(1). Subsequently, there have also been reports of problems with
insect-resistant cotton, and that the fibre length of GE cotton bolls
may be less than conventional cotton.
Insect-resistant ‘New Leaf’ potatoes planted in Georgia (former USSR)
resulted in losses of up to two-thirds of the crop (2).
Independent analysis conducted at the University of Nebraska of the
glyphosate-resistant RoundUp Ready soybean, show losses of 4-11%
compared to conventional soy. The study was well controlled and the
authors concluded that the yield reduction was due to the genetic
engineering process (3,4).
MORE NUTRITIOUS FOODS?
So far no genetically engineered food on the market has any nutritional
advantage compared to conventional foods.
“Golden Rice” has been touted by proponents of biotechnology as an
example of how GE crops can have huge benefits in the Third World,
where 10 000 children a month are estimated to go blind each month as a
result of vitamin A deficiency. “ Golden Rice”, at an estimated
development cost of over $US 100 million has been engineered to produce
vitamin A. Unfortunately, the amount of vitamin A it produces is so
low, that it is estimated that a female adult would need to eat 3.6 kg
dry weight (approximately 9 kg cooked) per day to meet her
requirements. An eleven-year-old child would need to eat approximately
6.8kg per day (5).
In addition the whole development overlooks the fact that in the real
world, vitamin A deficiency is not an isolated dietary problem. It is
strongly associated with iron and selenium deficiencies, and
malnutrition. “Golden Rice” will not address any of these problems at
all.
It is easy to argue that the money might have been better spent
elsewhere, e.g. in the supply of vitamin A pills.
THIRD WORLD HUNGER
It is estimated that the world currently produces enough food to feed
one and a half times the current population.
Starvation in the Third World is related causally to such issues as
poverty, dispossession from the land, political oppression, war, and
distribution problems. Genetic engineering cannot address any of these
problems.
Biotechnology will not solve Third World hunger. The issues of
Multinational corporations controlling world food and seed resources
may well exacerbate it.
WHAT ARE THE RISKS OF GE CROPS?
Increasing numbers of doctors and scientists around the world are
warning that genetically engineered foods and crops may pose serious
hazards to the environment and human health. Evidence is gradually
mounting to show that these concerns have a very real scientific basis.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES OF GE CROPS
Australia currently only grows two GE crops commercially: cotton, and
blue/mauve carnations (which have recently become available for home
gardeners). However, there have been extensive field trials of various
GE crops, and GE canola is potentially to be commercially released next
year. By law, all field trial sites must be monitored following trial
completion, and any residual or weedy GE plants must be destroyed.
Consequently, areas which do not grow cotton, are currently technically
GE free. This status confers benefits to export markets, as well as
avoiding any risks of GE crops. However, GE free status will be
rapidly lost if commercial crops of canola go ahead next year.
Hence, it is particularly appropriate to evaluate the potential
environmental risks of GE crops.
INCREASED HERBICIDE USE
It appears self-evident that crops engineered to be resistant to
herbicides are likely to encourage increased use of these pesticides.
Herbicides are recognized to be toxic to other species.
The most commonly used herbicide in this context is glyphosate, the
active ingredient of Round Up. Both glyphosate and its surfactant
(wetting agent, which allows the chemical to stick to plants) are toxic
to soil microorganisms, spiders, waterborne insects, fish and frogs.
Glyphosate reduces human sperm motility, a sensitive marker of toxicity
(6), causes skin reactions, and has been associated with an increased
risk of non-Hodgkins Lymphoma, a kind of cancer (7).
The next commonest herbicide used is glufosinate, a recognized nerve
toxin, which has been shown to damage the developing brain and nervous
systems of rat fetuses in laboratories. It has also been observed that
male agricultural workers exposed to glufosinate have higher rates of
birth defects in their children. The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency states it is toxic at very low levels to many aquatic and marine
animals.
Clearly these are undesirable and potentially dangerous chemicals.
Emerging multiply-resistant weeds require even more toxic herbicides to
kill them, e.g. 2, 4-D.
TOXICITY OF BT TO NON-TARGET SPECIES
Insecticide producing crops produce various forms of Bt toxin, in all
parts of the plants at all times. This pattern of Bt use predisposes to
rapid development of pest insect resistance to Bt.
Additionally, a wide range of non-target and beneficial insects can be
killed indiscriminately. Lacewings and ladybirds, both predator
insects, have both been shown to have increased mortality rates and
developmental problems when fed pests which have been raised on
insect-resistant plants (8). GM corn pollen dusted onto the host plant
of Monarch butterfly caterpillars can kill them (9).
Apart from biodiversity issues, this raises the risk of devastating
infestations, which normally would not reach pest proportions due to
normal biological control being interrupted.
Also, transgenic Bt has been shown to be different to conventional Bt
sprays: it is exuded through plant roots and decomposing debris, into
the soil, where it accumulates and is toxic to soil microfauna (10),
and hence may have long-term adverse effects on soil health.
CROSS-POLLINATION
There is clear evidence that GE crops cross-pollinate compatible plants
growing near enough for viable pollen to reach them. This distance is
variable. Bees carry pollen for at least 4.5 km. The wind can carry it
much further, and corn pollen has been shown to be viable after blowing
180 miles. Other sources of contamination are seeds being blown on the
wind, or falling off farming trucks and equipment, or traveling on
animal fur or clothing.
This means that conventional and organic crops are at risk of GE
contamination, as Canadian canola farmers have discovered to their cost
– by being sued by Monsanto for growing a patented crop without a
license. Percy Schmeiser is such a farmer, who for forty years
seed-saved his own strains of traditional canola. Despite admission in
Court from Monsanto that there was no evidence that he had deliberately
acquired GM seed, it’s presence on his farm led him being found guilty
of patent infringement, and having to pay Monsanto the value of his
crop, damages and court costs. Mr. Schmeiser estimates that 1800
Canadian farmers are currently under investigation by Monsanto, and
40-50,000 have been investigated at some time. Further details appear
at www.percyschmeiser.com.
Organic farm status is clearly also at risk. In the case of GE canola,
Canadian agricultural experts are now saying that the growing of GE
canola has made it difficult or impossible to grow conventional or
organic canola in Canada. In the light of this experience, it must be
asked why the Australian Office of the Gene Technology Regulator would
even entertain applications for the commercial release of GE canola
here. But it is.
Beside the market implications of cross-pollination, there are other
problems. The development of multiple-herbicide resistant weed forms of
crop plants has also occurred, and now 2,4-D and paraquat are being
recommended to control such canola plants in Canada.
Insecticide-producing weedy plants is also clearly undesirable.
Cross-pollination with GE crops will irreversibly reduce bio-diversity.
HORIZONTAL GENE TRANSFER
Horizontal gene transfer is the process where a piece of genetic
material from one organism is incorporated into the DNA of another.
This occurs naturally between microorganisms. There are concerns that
transgenic (GE) DNA could be involved in this process more readily than
normal DNA, due to the nature of the gene sequences, in particular the
gene switches which are designed to allow integration of foreign genes
into a host.
At the University of Jena in Germany, Professor Hans-Hinrich Kaatz has
found DNA from transgenic pollen in microorganisms in the gut of
juvenile bees.
GE sugar beet DNA coding antibiotic resistance has been shown to
persist in soil for at least two years, where it was transferred into
soil microorganisms (12, 13).
Bacteria are inherently mobile, and able to exchange their genetic
material. Soil health is critically dependent on soil microorganisms,
so it is possible that gene transfer, in conjunction with accumulation
of GM Bt toxin and increased use of herbicides, could have devastating
effects on soils.
The ‘gene switch’ used in most GE crops to date is from the cauliflower
mosaic virus (CaMV), a plant pathogen. It is able to recombine with a
wide range of hosts, including microorganisms, plants, and animals.
This may lead to unpredictable gene expression, and hence wide
disruption to eco-systems. Early evidence from Mexico (where GE corn
has been banned to conserve its ancient strains of maize) shows that
landrace corn has been contaminated with CaMV, and the scrambled nature
of the gene sequences present is consistent with them having been
acquired by horizontal gene transfer. If this is true, GE crops
irreversibly jeopardize biodiversity and food security by making it
impossible to conserve all other crop strains.
“TERMINATOR TECHNOLOGY”
“Terminator Technology” is a lay term for a process of engineering a
crop so that its seeds will be sterile. The euphemisms used in
Australia to describe these crops include “pollination controlled” and
“new hybridization system”. In these cases, the plants are grown
alongside a “restorer” line plant, which is engineered to contain an
antidote to the toxin used in the sterile plants. Terminator crops use
barnase, an enzyme which destroys RNA, the essential link between DNA
and its functions in all living cells. Barnase is a non-specific
poison, capable of killing any cell exposed to it. Obviously, although
barnase is only intended to be expressed in the reproductive parts of
the plant, every cell in the plant will contain the barnase gene. This
means there will be billions of copies of the gene for barnase in even
a small plantation of Terminator plants. The consequences of horizontal
gene transfer of this gene could be absolutely devastating. Despite
this Terminator Indian mustard and canola have been grown at multiple
field trial sites in Australia since 1995 (GMAC website), and
Terminator canola products have been in imported foods for years (ANZFA
documents).
At this stage it is impossible to predict all of the environmental
effects of growing GE crops. The evidence that they pose serious risks,
which we cannot afford to ignore, is mounting. Hence, it is vital to
employ extreme caution in their adoption.
HUMAN HEALTH RISKS OF GE FOODS
1. INCREASED ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE
As discussed previously, most commercial GE crops contain genes for
antibiotic resistance as markers of the genetic engineering process. It
is known that DNA persists in the gut and soil (12) and there is
evidence of transgenic gene transfer (13). In fact, the first human
feeding study on GE foods showed that bacteria in the gut took up
antibiotic resistance genes from genetically engineered soy after only
one meal (14). When challenged about the risks of transfer of
antibiotic resistance, the official line from food regulators around
the world has been that it is so unlikely that this would happen that
we don’t even need to consider it as a safety issue of GE foods. This
has always been an unsatisfactory assumption, and now there is
scientific proof that it is wrong.
The genes used include those conferring kanamycin-gentamicin
resistance, and beta-lactamase (penicillin resistance). Gentamicin is
used intravenously in serious infections such as septicaemia.
Penicillin class antibiotics are used in a wide range of human and
veterinary infections. That is, a huge new reservoir of resistance to
antibiotics frequently used to treat human infections- some of them
life threatening has been created. The potential scale of this problem
can be imagined when it is considered that every cell of a GE plant
contains at least one copy of a gene for antibiotic resistance. These
genes leach out through the plant roots into soil, and many millions of
acres of GE crops are now grown worldwide. Every GE crop contains many
millions of cells, and may be fed to animals and humans. These genes
are hence available to horizontal gene transfer into bacteria in the
soil, and in the gut of animals and humans eating them.
2. RISKS OF INGESTING FOREIGN DNA
Viral DNA can survive digestion (15) and large segments can enter the
bloodstream and be taken up by cells in the intestine, spleen, liver
brain and white cells (16). It can also be incorporated into the
developing offspring of pregnant animals. The potential effects of this
have not been assessed. However, the use of Para retroviral promoter
sequences may well be hazardous. Professor Arpad Pusztai put forward
controversial research evidence that promoter sequences could cause
histopathological and immunological changes in intestinal mucosa (17)
and also reductions in the weight of brain, liver, spleen and heart of
rats fed GE potatoes for only ten days.
Professor of Biology, Dr. Mae-Wan Ho and colleagues, warn that the
cauliflower mosaic virus promoter (present in practically all GE crops)
has a recombination hot-spot which allows it to recombine with a large
range of DNA. The promoter sequence has been shown to function in many
plants, algae, microorganisms and mammals including humans (18),
potentially causing unpredictable effects on gene expression. They
caution that this may prove to have disastrous consequences, such as
cancer (19). In addition, recombination of viral promoter sequence or
other viral DNA segments with inactivated viruses in animals or humans
may cause the reactivation of those viruses, and even make them more
pathogenic than in their natural form. This may lead to the development
of new infectious diseases.
3. INCREASED AGRICULTURAL RESIDUES IN
FOODS
Coinciding with the introduction of RoundUp Ready soy into Australia,
there was a push to increase allowable glyphosate residues in soy by
200 times. As described above glyphosate is toxic and has been linked
to a form of cancer. Glufosinate, also used with GE crops is also
poisonous. It is clearly undesirable to have residues of these
chemicals in foods.
4. THE CASE OF rBGH MILK
In the U.S.A., cows are treated with recombinant bovine growth hormone,
a genetically engineered hormone, to increase their milk production.
This is despite the fact that American farmers are paid subsidies to
dispose of milk surpluses. The cows have increased incidence of
mastitis, hence higher antibiotic levels in their milk, as well as
bloat, diarrhoea, enlarged hocks, knee and foot disorders, still-births
and decreased life-expectancy. In addition to these animal welfare
issues, their milk is different to that of untreated cows. It contains
up to ten times the level of IGF-1 (insulin-like growth factor 1).
Bovine and human IGF-1 are the same. IGF-1 is a growth promoter, and
has been implicated as a promoter of breast, bowel and prostate cancer
(20). RBGH is not registered for use in Australia, but is sold
unlabelled in the U.S.A., with no investigation of its potential
effects on cancer rates.
5. ALLERGIC REACTIONS
Genetically engineered foods may be shown to be more allergenic than
conventional foods. Food allergies cause significant morbidity in the
population, and can be fatal. When a soybean was genetically engineered
with a gene from brazil nuts to increase its protein content, it
expressed brazil nut allergen and was capable of causing reactions in
people sensitive to brazil nuts (21). Genetic engineering incorporates
into the food chain genes from sources that are not traditional foods
e.g. viruses, bacteria and non-food plants. Their potential
allergenicity is unknown, and may take years to become evident. In
recent years soy has moved from 14th to 9th in the order of food
allergens. It is inappropriate to assume that this is a coincidence and
has nothing to do with GE soy.
6. ALTERED CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF FOOD
A study in the Journal of Medicinal Food (vol. 1 no.4, 1999) shows a
reduction in phytooestrogenic activity in a variety of GE soy. Other
studies show increased levels.
ANZFA food safety assessments of GE foods have shown significant
differences in amino acid and fatty acid composition in a number of GE
foods approved for consumption. Despite this, analysis of toxin,
vitamin and other micro-nutrient levels have not been done. Therefore,
it cannot be assumed that GE foods will be as nutritious, or as safe,
as conventional foods.
7. RISKS OF UNEXPECTED CONTAMINANTS
The eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome associated with tainted tryptophan in
the 1980’s, which killed 37 people and made thousands ill, was
ultimately traced to one batch of tryptophan produced by genetically
engineered bacteria. Exactly what went wrong is conjectural, as the
bacteria were destroyed by the producers, before independent testing
could be done (22). In particular when coupled with the fact that ANZFA
data shows different protein and fat composition in GE foods, it is
very clear that all genetically engineered foods should be thoroughly
tested for unexpected toxins.
8. RISKS OF TERMINATOR TECHNOLOGY
As described above, Terminator crops contain genes for barnase, a
universal cell poison. Barnase has been shown to be nephrotoxic (i.e.
cause kidney damage) when perfused into rat kidneys. It can kill any
cell it comes into contact with, including human cells. The
consequences of horizontal gene transfer of this gene are alarming.
Despite this, in recent documents on the application for approval of
glufosinate-resistant pollination controlled canola, ANZFA admitted
that, as is the case of most GE foods, it has been present in imported
foods for some years before any food safety assessment was begun.
9. RISKS OF CONSUMING PRODUCTS FROM
ANIMALS FED GE FEED
Veterinary experts in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration have warned
that there may be adverse effects to humans eating products such as
eggs, milk and meat, derived from animals fed GE feed. In many cases,
the animals’ diets may be derived from large quantities of a limited
range of feed, so a GE ingredient may make up the bulk of the diet.
Consequently, animals may act as ‘concentrators’ of any adverse
components of GE foods, and may be able to pass them on into the food
chain.
There is a precedent for this type of problem with GE foods: as
described above, ladybirds eating aphids raised on GE insect-resistant
potatoes have increased mortality, decreased life-span and lower
fertility rates.
SAFETY ASSESSMENTS OF GENETICALLY
ENGINEERED FOODS
The above are typical of the types of potential hazards raised by a
growing number of doctors and scientists internationally, and in many
cases are now appearing in peer-reviewed scientific and medical
journals. In the light of these warnings, what safety testing is being
done to ensure that GE foods are safe for human consumption?
The answer is, hardly any. The safety testing of genetically engineered
foods has always been woefully inadequate.
In fact, genetically engineered foods were originally approved as safe
in the U.S.A. as a result of a political directive which overrode the
warnings of the FDA's own experts that GE foods are not the same as
conventional foods and pose special risks. Further details, including
original internal FDA memos can be seen at www.bio-integrity.org.
Other food standards authorities around the world, including our own,
approved the first round of GE foods on the grounds that they had been
found to be safe in America.
Further, safety assessments rely on the assumption of
“substantial equivalence”, which in the case of a RoundUp Ready soy
bean goes a bit like this: It looks like a soybean. It has the same
protein and moisture and ash levels as a soybean. People cook/process
and eat it as if it were a soybean. Therefore it must be a soybean.
Therefore it does not need any special safety assessment.
ANZFA considers data provided by proponent companies. It does not
commission or access or perform any independent testing. In addition,
data from the proponents is accepted in the form of in-house reports,
not peer-reviewed, published scientific studies.
In some cases, ANZFA has approved GE foods as “substantially
equivalent” even when it has data showing statistically significant
differences in key constituents such as amino acids, which may indicate
the presence of unexpected proteins, which of course could be
allergenic or toxic.
On those occasions where animal studies are done, illness or death in
the test animals is universally attributed to “some other component of
the food”, or some other adverse effect, without further explanation or
repeated experiments. Animal studies, when done at all, are typically
limited to small numbers of animals, making it difficult to detect
statistical differences. They also only go on for a few days, and
parameters measured are things like “observed for signs of toxicity or
mortality.” That is, the experiments are designed to only detect the
most dramatic of adverse effects, such as frothing at the mouth or
death, occurring in the minimum time frame. Autopsies are similarly
extremely limited, to parameters such as thickness of chickens’ breast
fat pads (which has no obvious predictive value to human health), and
gross visual inspection of some body organs. More sensitive and
scientific assessments such as histopathology, biochemistry and
immunology testing are never performed.
There has been no testing of the novel genes used, including barnase.
There has been no testing of the promoter sequences or other DNA
sequences used in the genetic engineering process.
There has been no testing of the GE form of Bt toxin, used in
insecticidal lines.
There have been no long-term animal studies. There have been no tests
looking for carcinogenicity (cancer production).
There have been no studies on pregnant or lactating animals to assess
any ill effects on their offspring.
There has been no safety testing of products derived from animals fed
GE feed.
It took over 6 years from market introduction until the first human
safety study was done. This study showed that antibiotic resistance
genes enter bacteria in the human gut, after one GE meal. What might
any other tests show?
In response to criticisms on the safety assessments of GE foods to
date, ANZFA replies that it is not necessary to conduct tests looking
for long-term problems, such as cancer or birth defects, because no
acute toxicity has been observed (personal communication).
Food authorities around the world have approved GE foods as safe until
they are proven harmful, on the back of flawed data, and unproven
hypotheses, and under threat of sanctions through the W.T.O. if GE
foods were rejected, or even properly labeled.
Genetically engineered crops are living self-replicating organisms,
which have the potential to threaten living systems. Any GE food
subsequently proven to be harmful has the potential to disrupt the
world food supply. Not only that, most of the world’s human population,
and uncountable herds of livestock, are being exposed to GE food.
Even if a serious health hazard is unlikely, the potential impact is
huge if/when something goes wrong.
The risks of GE foods and crops are not clear, because the necessary
research has not been done. However, one thing is clear, and that is GE
foods have not been proven to be safe. Critics of genetic engineering
are unanimous in their assertion that GE foods should have been proven
safe prior to their launch into the market. It is indeed more than
reasonable to expect this to have been done. Moreover, many have
suggested models for ensuring safety, borrowed from the stringent
safety analysis required for new drugs. Unfortunately, these strategies
to ensure food safety and public health have gone unheeded.
Genetically engineered crops also carry economic risks, such as
restricted market opportunities and litigation in the inevitable event
of contamination of nearby farms etc. These risks have not been
adequately addressed, but the insurance industry has made it clear for
several years that it will not insure any aspect of GE crops, because
its potential claim exposure would be too large.
Political, commercial and trade considerations have been allowed to
take precedence over environmental and public safety.
It is also clear that there are no consumer benefits from GE foods and
crops. It is clearly unacceptable that consumers have been forced to
accept a fundamental change in their food supply, to carry the risks of
that change, and receive no benefits. This unfavourable risk-benefit
analysis is enough to make genetically engineered foods and crops
completely unacceptable at this time.
SUMMARY
Genetically engineered foods and crops pose many risks to the
environment, public health and farmers’ livelihoods. These risks have
not been adequately assessed. To date, there is no proof that GE foods
or crops are safe. It is most unfortunate, and history may prove it
reprehensible, that proof of safety was not established prior to the
marketing of genetically engineered foods, or the environmental
releases of genetically engineered crops.
On the basis of inadequate safety data, there is no justification for
the approval of any genetically engineered food as safe at this time.
On the basis of inadequate safety data, there is no justification for
any environmental release of genetically engineered crops or any other
GMO. In particular, the applications for commercial canola releases
next year should not proceed.
Unpalatable as it may be to our food industry and regulators, the only
truly safe course of action is to recall all existing genetically
engineered foods and crops until such time as they have been proven to
be safe.
To do anything else is indefensible.
References:
1. Union of concerned
scientists. The Gene Exchange – A public voice on biotechnology and
agriculture. Fall 1997.
2.
Spinney, I. Biotechnology in crops: Issues for the developing world.
Report to Oxfam, U.K. May 1998.
3.
Holzman, D. Agricultural Biotechnology: Report leads to debate on
benefits of transgenic corn and soybean crops. Genetic engineering
news. Vol 19 No 18. 15 April 199.
4. Lappe, M. and
Bailey, B. Against the Grain. Earthscene. London. 1999. p 82
5. Pollan, M. The Great
Yellow Hype. New York Times Magazine. Mar 4 2001.
6.
FAO/WHO 1986. Pesticide residues in food. Evaluations part 1 & 2.
Rome,29.
7. Hardell, L and
Eriksson, M. A case control study of non-Hodgkins lymphoma. Cancer, vol
85. No 6, 15 Mar 1999. pp 1353-60.
8. Hilbeck et.al.
Toxicity of Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1 Ab toxin to the predator
Chrysoperla carnea. Environmental Entomology. Vol 27 No 4. Aug 1998.
9. Losey J. E., Rayner,
L. S., Carter, M.E. Nature 399, 214.
10.
Crecchio, C. &Stotsky G. Insecticidal activity and biodegradation
of the toxin… Soil biology and biochemistry. Vol 30 pp 463-70. 1998.
11. Orson, J. (2002). Gene stacking
in herbicide tolerant oilseed rape: lessons from the North American
experiences. English Nature Research Report No 443.
12.
Gebhard, F. & Smaala, K. Monitoring field releases of genetically
modified sugarbeets for persistence of transgenic DNA and horizontal
gene transfer. Microbial Ecology. 28 1999. pp 261-72
13.
Gebhard F.and Smalla, K. Transformation of Acinetobacter sp strain BD
413 by transgenic sugarbeet DNA. Environ. Microbiol. Vol 64. pp 1550-9
14. GM genes found in human gut.
The Guardian. July 17 2002.
15.
Schubbert, R. et. al. Ingested foreign (phage M13) DNA survives
transiently in the gastrointestinal tract and enters the bloodstream of
mice. Mol. Gen. Genet. 242: 495-504. 1994.
16.
Schubbert, R. et. al.Foreign M13 DNA ingested by mice reaches
peripheral lymphocytes, spleen and liver via the intestinal wall mucosa
and can be covalently linked to mouse DNA. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
94: 961-6. 1997.
17. Ewen, S.W.B., Pusztai, A.
Effects of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing
Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine. Lancet 1999. 354:
1353-4.
18. Ballas, N. et.al. (1989)
Efficient functioning of plant promoters and poly(A) sites in Xenopus
oocytes. Nucl. Acids Res. 17,7891-903.
19. Ho, M., Ryan, A, Cummins, J.
Cauliflower mosaic virus – a recipe for disaster? Microb Ecol. Health
Dis. 1999;11:194-7.
20. SVCM Report on Public Health
Aspects of rBST – European commission website.
www,http://europa.eu.int/comm./dg24/health/sc/scv/out19_en.html
21.
Nordlee, J. et.a l. Identification of brazil nut allergen in transgenic
soybeans. New England Journal of Medicine. Vol 334(11).1996 pp 688-92.
22.
Mayeno, A.N. & Gleich, G.J. 1994. Eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome and
tryptophan production: a cautionary tale. Tibtech 12 pp 346-352.
<
Back to the SAGFIN Homepage >
Updated 3 May 2004