The biotech industry has experienced explosive growth, eclipsing that of the high-tech industry. It is driven by two factors: the curiosity of its scientists and the reward. The benefits to be gained are enormous, and it is these benefits that are blinding its advocates and fueling the debate.
It all started back in 1995 with the modification of the humble tomato. But what a Pandora’s Box he opened. Today we see many varieties of genetically modified products that, although they look the same on the outside, are very unique in their genetic makeup. This practice of creating designer foods through genetic manipulation is seen as the promising future in agriculture. Geneticists tell us breathlessly that this new technology will revolutionize our lives and lead to electrifying advances in the food industry. Some of the supposed benefits of this genetic manipulation are:
o Foods more tolerant to chemicals and better resistance to pests and diseases
o More nutritional content and improved food processing characteristics
o Resistance to unfavorable soil and weather conditions
o Better maturation, texture and flavor in food.
But it’s sure?
Although the technology is impressive, the question of food safety remains skeptical and claims to be wishful thinking. Genetic engineering is only in its infancy and scientists have no idea what they are messing with. By inserting genes to alter design and content, they intervene in DNA, which is a self-organizing, self-replicating macromolecule with the ability to perform error correction. The introduction of a foreign gene introduces instability. The stress will cause the molecule to try to expel or mutate the foreign gene, resulting in a new structure and the possibility of serious malfunction. This instability or unwanted characteristic may not manifest itself for several generations.
At this time, Agriculture Canada and the USDA have not identified any long-term health risks. All testing to date, despite assurances to the contrary by the biotech industry and regulatory authorities, is interpreted to safeguard the industry, not to ensure public safety. Standard toxicology tests are done by the benefiting industry, no testing is done by regulatory authorities (based on industry data), no independent scientific testing, no long term studies, no 6th, 7th , eighth and later generations, and there is no monitoring of releases to the environment. In other words, the tests are grossly one-sided. The only significant trials taking place are those that use the human population as unwitting guinea pigs and the environment as an external laboratory.
The biotech industry specializes in half-truths, outright hoaxes, and outlandish claims. It is not surprising to learn that the large companies in the manufacture and distribution of biocides (for example, Monsanto) are also important players in biotechnology. It should also come as no surprise that intense lobbying by the same companies has led to a massive increase in permitted herbicide residues on crops. GM crops can tolerate increased herbicide application, leading to a substantial increase in use.
So we can easily see that biotechnology, rather than being used to solve agricultural problems, is driven more by profit than by need. It intensifies farmers’ dependence on industrial inputs to legally inhibit farmers’ right to reproduce, share and store seeds. By controlling germplasm from seed to sale and forcing farmers to pay inflated prices for seed packages and chemicals, companies are determined to get the most out of their investment.
Opinion polls show that the world public is overwhelmingly against genetically modified foods. In France, Great Britain, Denmark, the US and countries in Europe, between 68 and 90% of all respondents were dogmatically against the use of GM products. The giant chemical companies are well aware of this dilemma.
(There is substantial opposition from the public, the media and, not least, from retailers) – Leaked Monsanto internal report.
However, we are likely still dining in the DNA-altered kitchen without even knowing it. Street vendors of genetically modified foods continue to slip their adulterated products onto the world market in the hope that no one will notice. Producers deliberately mix GM and non-GM products in their food, which amounts to force-feeding an unsuspecting public. How many people in Canada know that they are eating a diet estimated to be 60% genetically processed foods? How many know that the United States, Canada, and Argentina account for more than 90% of the world’s GM food crops? The absence of food labeling helps tremendously in this growing market (as is the case with irradiated foods).
[Labeling is the key issue … If you put a label on genetically engineered food; you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it. – head of Asgrow, Monsanto seed subsidiary].
More genetic danger
And the ecological balance? Modified crop genes could cross-pollinate in the field, destroying wild habitats and creating a genetically polluted environment. Once released, the genetic material can never be retrieved again. These organisms are a new life form that can mutate and reproduce for generations with other living things. It is a non-indigenous species that has absolutely no natural habitat outside of the laboratory. Their introductions are sure to trigger elements in the environment that have a ripple effect of cascading changes throughout the ecosystem.
“If something goes horribly wrong, we will be faced with the problem of removing a type of contamination that is self-perpetuating. I’m not sure anyone had the first idea how this could be done, or indeed who would do it.” you have to pay.” – Prince Charles, Seeds of Disaster, The Daily Telegraph, June 8, 1998
Here are some examples of agricultural genetic faults that illustrate some of the problems that have been found:
o The Flavr Savr tomato was a commercial disaster
o Bt cotton was heavily damaged by Bt-resistant pests
o Roundup Cotton sheds its cotton balls when sprayed with Roundup
o A soybean with a Brazil nut gene contains a protein fatal to people with nut allergies
o Genetically modified potatoes damaged the immune system in rats
o GM canola can harm bees by destroying their ability to recognize flower scents.
These are just a few samples taken from known examples. There may be many more that we do not know about because latent genetic abnormalities have not yet emerged. It only takes one rogue gene to cause a disaster. Biotech offers no benefits to the public or the environment, only to biotech companies hoping to make a killing. It may be a bigger kill than they expected. Using genetically modified crops is the same as conducting a gigantic experiment on the world’s ecosystem. But with this experiment, the ultimate price could be life itself.
“My concern is that further advances in science could result in other means of mass destruction, perhaps more readily available even than nuclear weapons. Genetic engineering is quite a possible area, because of these terrible developments that are taking place there.” . – Joseph Rotblat, Nobel Laureate.
Sources:
1) Allen, Scott – Playing with the DNA on your plate – New York Times Syndicate, 1999
2) Alison Abbot, German Doctors Warn of Genetic Risks, Nature, Vol 384 No 9, 1997
3) Andy Coghlan, The Devil We Don’t Know – Virus Resistance Is What Keeps Genetic Engineers Awake At Night, New Scientist, September 12, 1996
4) Anon, Gene Food Row, News in Brief, Sunday Times, August 16, 1998
5) Anon, Battle Lines Drawn Over Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods, Campaigns & News, The Ecologist, Jul/Aug 1998
6) Ambassador College Agriculture Department – Genetic Engineering, Complex Path to Failure – Your Living Environment, May 1970/73, Vol.1, No.5.
7) Asda, Labeling of Genetically Modified Ingredients, Asda, January 28, 1998
8) BBC, Genetically Modified Food News, The World at One, Radio 4, BBC, August 10, 1998
9) BBC, Report on Virulent and Cross-Species Viruses, Frontiers, Radio 4, BBC, February 24, 1999
10) BBC, Report on GM Crops, One Planet, BBC World Service, BBC, December 16, 1998 11) Clive Cookson, Field of Genes, Financial Times, August 11, 1998
12) Cummins, E.Joseph – More on Modified Genes – Alive, Canadian Journal of Health & Nutrition, Issue 3, p.135, 1993.
13) FDA, Center for Food Safety and Emerging Technologies of Applied Nutrition – Biotechnology, 1995
14) FDA/CFSAN, Fed.Register – Policy Statement: Foods Derived from New Varieties of Plants – Vol.57, No.104, p.22984-22989, May 29, 1992.
15) Food labelling; Foods Derived from New Varieties, Federal Register, April 28, 1993, Vol. 58 pages 25837-25841
Hsu, Karen – The Future of Food is Now – New York Times Syndicate, 1999.
16) Kendall, Patricia-Food Biotech.: Boon or Threat-Journal of Nutr. Education, 1997 – Society for Nutrition Education.
17) McCullum,Christine – The New Age of Biotechnology: Issues for Education and Policy – Journal of Nutrition Education and Policy, May/June 1997 – Society for Nutrition Education.
18) P. Hatchwell, Opening Pandora’s Box: The Risks of Releasing Genetically Modified Organisms, The Ecologist, July/August 1989
19) Reuters – Playing with Mother Nature – Copyright 1998 ABC News
20) Reuters – Suit Warns About Food Hazards – Copyright 1998 ABC News.
21) Staunton, Dennis et al – GM Foods Threaten the Planet – Guardian Newspapers Ltd., 1999.
22) Steve Gorelick, Hiding harmful information from the public, The Ecologist, September/October. 1998
23) Wales, Prince of – Genetically modified food: is it an innovation we can do without? – Online Forum, Copyright St. James Place and Press Association Ltd. 1999