GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS
THE
PRODUCT AND MANUFACTURER’S CLAIMS
Genetic
modification of plants or animals occurs by inserting genetic material from one
organism into the chromosomes of another organism. Scientists discovered methods to horizontally transfer the DNA from a ‘donor’ organism into that of a ‘host’
organism across species lines (for example, inserting the DNA that enables
Arctic fish to survive in cold water into strawberries for the purpose of
making the fruit more tolerant of cold temperatures). Cross-breeding occurs in nature only within
species boundaries (i.e. breeding one variety of tomato with another tomato to
create a hybrid), thus genetic engineering enables scientists to create novel
organisms that otherwise would not be possible in nature. The result of gene-splicing enables the
host to express the genetic information obtained from the donor, passing it on
to subsequent generations through conventional breeding and propagation. Genetic engineering is carried out with the
intent of yielding an improved product.
Examples of these transgenic plants include corn, potatoes, canola,
cotton and soy beans injected with DNA from herbicide and/or pesticides. The desired goals are insect and weed
resistant crops that require reduced exogenous herbicide and pesticide
application.[1]
In
1992 a Supreme Court ruling made the patenting of life-forms legal.[2] Following this, first genetically engineered
(GE) products became available in US markets in 1994. The Flavr Savr tomato that had been gene-altered for longer
shelf-life, and milk from dairy cows injected with recombinant Bovine Growth
Hormone (rBGH or rBST) causing them to produce more milk were two of the first
genetically modified (GM) foods available to consumers. By the year 2000, as much as 75% of
the foods in American supermarkets had ingredients from GE crops including
cereals, baby foods, corn and soy products, cooking oils, squash and tomatoes.[3] This paper will
examine the process of genetic modification, focusing on gene-altered plant
products and the implications for human health. Although it is beyond the scope of this writing to examine
environmental effects in detail, they will be lightly addressed since human health
is indirectly impacted by natural surroundings.
Manufacturers
of GE foods and the agricultural biotechnology industry claim a range of
benefits associated with their products.
Marketing claims encompass the following:
1.
Enhanced
nutritional quality
2.
Medicinal
purposes (“agriceutical”)
3.
Improved
taste and aesthetic appeal
4.
Improved distribution
5.
Decreased
use of pesticides and herbicides
6.
Increased
plant resistance to stressors such as viruses, drought, temperature, and poor
soil quality.
7.
Conservation
tillage
8.
Industrial
utility
9.
Increased
crop yield and expanding sustainable food supply to meet future demands of the
growing world population
10.
Increased
profitability for farmers and reduced cost to consumers
11.
Genetically “improved” foods have been rigorously tested, and are
safe to grow and consume
Monsanto,
the manufacturer of Golden Rice asserts that the biofortification of rice with
beta-carotene (a precursor to vitamin A) and Iron will reduce the incidence of
malnutrition and blindness due to vitamin A deficiency as well as reduce infant
mortality in developing countries.[4] The biotechnology
industry also purports that agriceutical vaccines currently being
developed will be much easier and less expensive to administer via vaccine-containing food and will therefore facilitate the
protection of millions of people in developing countries against virulent
life-threatening diseases. A recent
study demonstrated that when mice were fed transgenic Hepatitis B surface
antigen expressed in potato tubers, they showed a primary immune response by
producing the antibody specific to that antigen.[5] Hence the desired effect of improved
immunity may have been achieved through genetic engineering.
An improved taste and aesthetic appeal will lead to fewer insults
to crops due to weeds, pests and general growing conditions. The development of seedless fruits and
vegetables may also be more appealing to some consumers as well. Furthermore, manufacturers claim
environmental benefits such as a reduction in the amount of pesticide and
herbicide use due to the introduction of genetic material from those compounds
into the DNA of the plant seeds.
Because the crops can now express their own endogenous pest and weed
combatants, the need to apply those chemicals externally will be lessened. That in turn reduces chemical run-off and
improves the quality of water in streams, rivers and lakes. Soil quality will
also be impacted, due in part to reduced pesticide use and conserved tillage
that erodes soil and robs it of nutrients.[6] To that end however, manufacturers also
advertise that they are developing seeds that can thrive in poor soil
conditions such as that contaminated by aluminum, and also having high salinity
content.[7] Another current project involves Yellow
Poplar trees engineered with the ability to extract the ionic mercury from soil
and convert it to an inert form.[8]
“Agribio” companies also claim that distribution will be improved
due to genetic improvements that increase time-to-market and shelf-life of the
produce. That in combination with the
higher yield farming (due to increases in plant tolerance to weeds, pests and
environmental conditions) will help achieve the goal of a sustainable
agriculture system that will meet the demands of a growing world
population. Higher yield also increases
profitability for farmers while reducing food costs to consumers. Encompassing all of the aforementioned
advantages of GE crops, manufacturers also claim that their ‘genetically
improved’ crops are safe for human consumption based upon the principle of
‘substantial equivalence’ to conventional crops.[9]
MANUFACTURERS
INDICATION OF RISKS
Manufacturers
of GE foods state that risks of consuming GE foods are low and equivalent to
that of food grown conventionally.
Monsanto, one of the nation’s leading biotechnology corporations states
that ‘thousands of tests have been conducted on biotech foods. In fact, crops derived through genetic
engineering have been tested more than any other plants in the history of
agriculture and have been proven safe.”[10] Another biotech
industry publication stated that ‘nutritionists and other scientists do not
know of any unresolved safety issues.”[11]
Developers rest upon the principle of ‘substantial equivalence’ subscribed to
by the U.S. regulators and other countries which support their product
classification - ‘generally recognized as safe’ (GRAS).
Other countries including Japan and all 15 members of the European
Union (EU), have taken a less liberal position in approving genetically
modified foods for market than the U.S.
Rather than subscribing to the principle of ‘substantial equivalence’,
those countries take a more precautionary stance in which - if there exists
scientific uncertainty on the effects of a new technology, it must first be
proven safe before receiving market approval.
For example, France placed an immediate moratorium on growing certain
crops engineered with Bacillius thuringiensis after Cornell University
researchers found that pollen from gene-altered corn was toxic to the Monarch
butterfly. Germany removed Novartis corporation’s Bt corn from the market after
determining that antibiotic resistant genes used in the seed could impact
antibiotic immunity in that country.[12]
Public opinion in the EU in general is disapproving of GE crops
and foods and their regulators now require labeling of any product that
contains 1% or more of transgenic soybean or corn. The United Kingdom even requires labeling in restaurants, and has
placed a three year moratorium on the commercial planting of GE crops pending
further research.[13]
WHO USES THE PRODUCT?
Since there is no labeling requirement for GE food in the U.S.,
Americans in general are unaware that they are consuming GE ingredients in a
wide variety of foods Yet by 1999,
over sixty million acres of GE crops, nearly one-quarter of the nations food
and fiber harvest were planted in the U.S. The following lists some of the
foods containing GE ingredients commonly available in grocery stores:[14]
ü baby foods &
infant formulas
ü baking mixes
ü cereals
ü cooking oils
ü corn & corn
products
ü dairy products
ü margarine
ü papayas
ü popcorn
ü potatoes
ü radiccio
ü salad dressings
ü soy burgers
ü squash tomatoes
Resulting from the overwhelming rejection of GE foods from the EU,
American grower’s lost approximately $400 million dollars in sales of corn
exports in 1998 – 1999, and soybean exports declined by over a billion dollars
between the years 1996 and 1999.[15]
Consequently the biotech industry has undertaken a $50 million dollar public
relations campaign to try and change public perceptions about GE foods and to
lobby legislators against labeling.[16] These corporations have also targeted
developing countries that are in greater need of a solution to their inadequate
food supply, and poor growing conditions.
African countries, India, Ukraine and others with economic problems are
being courted by American biotechnology companies. Nigeria has recently committed $26 million per year to developing
their crops via biotechnology, citing the potential advantages genetic
modification.[17]
RESEARCH
QUOTED BY MANUFACTURERS
Manufacturers
of GE crops maintain that the risks are low to humans and the environment, and
that those risks are no greater than in that of foods grown
conventionally. Developers then suggest
that their GE products undergo extensive testing and regulation by the FDA and
the Environmental Protection Association (EPA) and that oversight by those
agencies in combination with peer reviewed publications and the seed certifying
agencies has been effective.[18]
Much
of the research quoted by biotech manufacturers has been geared towards product
development and also compositional characterization which helps to prove that a
product is “substantially equivalent” to conventional foods, and therefore
requires no pre-market approval by the FDA.
‘Of the thousands of field trials that biotechnology companies have
completed to date, 83% have been devoted to testing plants genetically
engineered for pest resistance or herbicide tolerance, and only 22 percent have
involved plants with improved product quality traits.[19] Few have tested
for health impacts, and of those, none to date have been performed using
human subjects. This may be due in part
to the expense of testing human subjects.
Piglets have a similar gut to humans but those tests are also expensive
and have not been used in GE testing.
The allergenic responses in the human digestive system also differ from
that of animals, thereby reducing relevance for testing.
In Monsanto’s “pledge” to become more transparent with their
research, they list references and research on their web site. Much of the work referenced however was from
in-house or industry sponsored scientists.
Another large portion of references were for symposia speakers and articles,
many again - supported by Monsanto.
Some of the other research cited, such as that of Dr. Arpad Pusztai and
his studies concluding that GE potatoes produced ill-effects in mice, served to
discredit the research as ‘flawed’[20].
(In fact Dr. Pusztai was fired from his research position at the Rowett
Institute in Scotland shortly after his work was published in the prestigious
peer reviewed journal ‘The Lancet’. It
is interesting to note however, that those outside of the biotechnology
industry validated his work. Perhaps
even more interesting, is the report that the Rowett Institute was the
recipient of a $224,000 grant from Monsanto at the time)[21] No compelling research was found that
directly satisfied the claim that genetically manipulated organisms (GMO) have
no risk to human health.
ANALYSIS
AND INDEPENDENT RESEARCH
Questioning
the principle of ‘Substantial Equivalence’
An
FDA policy in 1992 asserted that GE crops are usually the same as or
“substantially equivalent” to the conventional non-GE crop. Therefore, like their conventional
counterparts, they are considered “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) under
the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, and no pre-market approval is
necessary.[22] Since approval is not required, manufacturers of GE crops
or foods may submit product data on a voluntary basis. The FDA requires approval and labeling only (1) where
unexpected effects are produced and (2) the nutrients in or composition of the
product is substantially different from traditional edible varieties or
pharmaceuticals are present.[23] The United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA) regulates all GE crops with the exception of those with pesticidal genes
and proteins – which are regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA).[24] The FDA is responsible for ensuring that new
varieties are safe to consume.[25]
Dr. Pusztai, a renowned scientist in Scotland, condemned the
principle of substantial equivalence
stating that it is unscientific and that present analytical methods do not
allow for the discovery of new anti-nutrients, toxins and allergens as the
unintended consequence of genetic transformation of crops.’ He also criticized the agency’s almost
exclusive reliance on the “in-house work of biotech companies for assurance
that their engineered products are in fact substantially equivalent.[26]
Limited
Research
In
a report commissioned by the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology,
researchers concluded that federal (United States) research on food allergy was
insufficient and that:[27]
.
1.
There were no studies to examine the dose response or exposure
assessment information needed for setting ‘safe’ levels of new proteins
produced by biotechnology.
2.
Efforts to develop animal models or in vitro tests for food
allergy are extremely limited in sample.
3.
Studies on identifying and characterizing susceptible
subpopulations are insufficient, particularly as epidemiological studies are
not well represented.
4.
There is little research on identification and characterization of
new allergens or the molecular determinants of food allergy.
5.
Food safety regulators are unlikely to have all the necessary
tools for assessing the potential allergenicity of novel foods such as those
created using biotechnology.
Other deficiencies in the research referenced by GE developers and
the biotechnology industry include a lack of focus on long-term effects. Many of the trials were based upon only one
or two seasons of growth which does not take into account any potential
long-term deleterious effects.[28] Also, none of the studies tested the direct
effect of GE foods on human subjects in clinical trials. The biotech industry does claim that there
are no known cases of ill-effects of GE food, yet most people do not even know
that they are consuming transgenic foods because they are not labeled in this
country. So little is known about
possible effects, that anyone suffering from them may attribute their
discomforts to a symptom, without understanding what causes the symptom as may
be the case with gene-altered food.
There is also no system in place for consumers to give feed-back about
possible reactions to GE foods – a problem further complicated from a lack of
labeling of those foods.
Another research shortcoming is that there is disagreement between
experts in the “agribio” industry and independent scientists regarding how to
interpret data. Two examples of this
are the work of Dr. Pusztai, who found that GE potatoes caused gut lesions in
rats, and a Cornell University study that showed pollen from Bt corn was
detrimental to Monarch butterfly larvae.
Monsanto dismissed Dr. Pusztai’s methods as flawed, and they suggested
that the risks to Monarch butterflies in the Cornell Study are low.[29] In another instance, independent scientists
found deficiencies in Aventis corporation’s research regarding T25 GE
maize. Although it was approved for
cultivation as cattle feed, ‘no feeding or toxicity studies had been performed
on cattle,” thereby negating their conclusions that the maize was a safe feed.[30]
Primitive
Techniques and Testing
Opponents
of GE foods affirm that the techniques employed in gene-transfer are imprecise
and can yield potentially toxic, allergenic, unintended and even carcinogenic
results.[31]
The
techniques that scientists use to remove a section of DNA from one living
organism and insert it into the chromosomes of another are carried out by four possible
techniques:
1.
Direct
DNA uptake by the plant cells mediated by chemical or electrical treatments.
2.
Microinjection
of DNA directly into plant cells
3.
Biolistics,
or firing tiny metal particles coated with the DNA of interest into plant cells
4.
Employing
bacterial vectors, such as Agrobacterium tumefaciens or the CaMV series, as a
vehicle to carry the DNA into cells.[32]
Independent
researchers acknowledge that all four of those methods are imprecise and
unpredictable. Even though the gene may
be safe in the original organism, it is not necessarily safe in a genetically
modified organism (GMO) due to the potential for creating novel proteins during
the process. Proteins are known to be
the causes of allergens. When allergens enter the digestive system of susceptible
individuals, the immune system launches an attack on the foreign matter and the
individual suffers an allergenic reaction.[33] Since a whole food is greater than the sum
of its parts, and with the potential for novel proteins induced by genetic engineering,
the exact content of the food cannot be fully predicted, nor tested.[34]
Substantial equivalence is therefore an inadequate
measurement because it cannot account for the critical factors which are
presently unknowns.
In addition
using bacterial vectors as viral promoters:
‘ which are known to be
“hotspots” of recombination with host DNA and may induce horizontal gene
transfer, the inclusion of antibiotic
resistance genes in the gene-transfer construct and the unpredictability of both
the site of insertion and it’s consequences for plant genome makes this method
unacceptable…there is good peer-reviewed published evidence to show that Bt
toxins are both immunogens and immunoadjuvants for mammals and as such they
have profound influence on the functioning of both the humoral and mucosal
systems’[35] ‘It has also been shown that Bt toxins
bind to the mammalian small intestine and have major effects on its proper
functioning.’[36]
For example, due to the limitations of current science, there are
no standardized tests for assessing the health risks of vaccine-delivering
foods. Beyond this, current research
does not account for the possibility of latent manifestation of unanticipated
traits because manufacturers seldom test GM plants for more than a single
generation prior to putting seeds into full production.
A
Deeper Look at Allergens
In
the United States, 150 people die each year due to food-related allergic
reactions.
An additional 29,000 have severe anaphylactic episodes and
estimates suggest that about 3 million people are allergic to peanuts or tree
nuts.[37] Infants and children are at the greatest
risk of food allergy, being most susceptible to allergenic proteins found in
cow's milk, eggs, soy, wheat and peanuts.[38] Adults are more prone to develop allergies
to fish, shellfish, tree nuts, corn and tomatoes.
Fortunately the FDA does require labeling of foods
containing known allergens. Currently
however, there are no definitive tests to determine the potential allergenic
effects of novel proteins (that may be created during the transgenic
process). Regulatory agencies consider certain
risk factors which, combined, provide a rough guide as to the likely
allergenicity. Included in
these factors are comparisons to characteristics of known allergenic proteins,
such as whether a protein resists digestion, is similar in molecular structure
or whether it produces an immunological response in lab rats.[39] Mainly, there is reliance upon evidence from
the donor organism regarding allergenic proteins and not upon testing of novel
proteins. Again, the EPA reviews data
on any novel proteins that my cause allergy in organisms that contain
pesticides, but the FDA does so only on a voluntary basis. Fortunately, Pioneer Hi-bred abandoned a
project that attempted to improve the nutritional content of a soybean by
introducing genes from a Brazil-nut when it discovered that the transgenic
product caused serious reactions in people allergic to Brazil-nuts, rather than
marketing it.[40]
Immunological Considerations
Opponents
of genetic engineering also attack the common method of using bacterial or
viral vectors as vehicles to carry DNA into cells. Researchers use those vectors as a means of introducing the
bacteria or virus into the cell, thereby ‘promoting’ or activating the
transformation. The ‘promoters’ also
serve as ‘markers’ that enable identification of the success or failure of the
transformation. These constructs are
designed to facilitate horizontal gene flow (the gene-transfer) across species
barriers.[41] Problems may arise however, because these
configurations are highly mobile and are expected to occur with greater
frequency than can happen in nature. A
concern is that the bacteria may then be taken up by bacteria in the gut,
leading to the creation of new diseases.
A study by Mae-Wan Ho et. al. using the CaMV35s promoter suggested that
their results ‘emphasize the modularity and interchangeability of promoter
elements, which have important implications for the safety of transgenic
plants. It means, in effect, that
recombination of the CaMV promoter elements with dormant, endogenous viruses
may create new infectious viruses in all species to which the transgenic DNA is
transformed.’[42] The researchers also strongly recommended
that all open field trials and commercial production of transgenic crops
containing the CaMV series promoters be immediately withdrawn.
Dr. Joseph Cummins, an accomplished geneticist echo’s the dangers
of gene-transfer via viral promoters in particular and warns:
‘Probably the greatest threat
from genetically altered crops is the insertion of modified virus and insect
virus genes into crops. It has been
shown in the laboratory that genetic recombination will create highly virulent
new viruses from such constructions. Certainly the widely used Cauliflower
Mosaic virus (CaMV) is a potentially dangerous gene. It is a pararetrovirus meaning that it multiplies by making DNA
from RNA messages. It is very similar to the Hepatitis B virus and related to
HIV. Cauliflower Mosaic virus may
recombine with related Hepatitis B, or for that matter HIV to create most
powerful diseases. The salient feature
being large numbers of people or animals consuming large numbers of viral genes
incorporated into crop plants making up a major part of human and animal
diets. Thus modified viruses could
cause famine by destroying crops or cause human and animal diseases of
tremendous power.’[43]
Since viral
promoters are the most widely used technique for gene-transfer in the GE food
industry, there is cause for concern regarding the unknowns associated with
that method in particular.
A
second concern is that the prolific use of antibiotic resistance markers (which
help identify whether or not the gene-transfer to the host organism was
successful) present in GM foods may cause the people who consume them to
develop resistance to important antibiotics.
The prestigious British Medical Association (BMA) supported this theory
and concluded that ‘There should be a ban on the use of antibiotic resistance
marker genes in GM food, as the risk to human health from antibiotic resistance
developing in microorganisms is one of the major public health threats that
will be faced in the 21st century.’[44] Consequently, Britain banned the planting of
Novartis produced Bt corn, citing apprehensions that the induced ampicillin
resistant genes could make their way into the food chain, rendering the
antibiotic ineffective for treating bacterial infections.[45]
Unintended
Effects of Genetic Modification
Unintended
effects of genetic modification are likely to occur as a consequence of the
imprecise nature of the technologies employed.
The inability to predict the exact locations where transformations will
take place, the unknown amounts of genetic material passed through, the affects
of environmental conditions on the transfer and the potential DNA recombination
and protein synthesis can produce unidentifiable outcomes. The following is a sampling of unexpected
effects of genetic modification:
1.
Growers
realized unexpected effects when the stems of their Roundup Ready soybeans
produced by Monsanto split in hot, dry weather conditions, probably due to an
increase in lignin content.
Phytoestrogen levels (thought to protect against heart disease and
cancer) were also found to be 12-14% lower than in conventional soy beans.[46]
[47]
2.
Yeast
that was gene-altered to improve alcohol fermentation was found to have a
methylglyoxal (a highly toxic compound) content 30 times greater than that in
the unaltered control group.[48]
3.
Researchers
hoping to increase carotenoid (a precursor to vitamin A) content in oilseed
rape found dramatically reduced levels of vitamin E and chlorophyll.[49]
Assuredly
the inexplicable outcomes of reduced nutrition, increases in toxic compounds
and growing accidents that result in crop loss are unintended. These effects are amplified however, by the
notion that developers are free to commercialize the products unless they
uncover significant differences between their engineered products versus the
conventional versions. Further exacerbations
could easily occur if the manufacturers (who essentially police themselves in
the marketing process) error in their research or rush a product to market
prior to thorough testing. Several
organizations including the Center for Food Safety, Greenpeace and organic
farming organizations have filed lawsuits against the EPA and FDA for lack of a
thorough pre-market food and environmental safety testing regimen.[50]
The Soil Association, a proponent of organic farming cites four
cases in which GE foods were shown to cause harmful health effects:[51]
1.
Flavr Savr Tomato:
resulted in lesions, ‘gastritis’, in rats. On a scale of 1-4, the effects were 2-3, but described by the
company as ‘mild’.
2.
GM potatoes:
Dr. Arpad Pusztai’s experiments at the Rowett Institiute found gut
lesions in rats following consumption of GM potatoes with the gene for lectin
production. The rats were unaffected by
non-GM potatoes or lectin alone.
3.
rBGH: Studies showed
ill effects in cows and rats from the milk production enhancing hormone. Banned by other countries yet widely used in
the U.S.[52]
4.
GM forage maize, Chardon LL ‘GM forage
maize, Chardon LL, was approved for commercialization by the government,
despite risk to human health from this aspect. The relevant herbicide in this
case was glufosinate, a neurotoxin and a teratogen (damages embryos). Apparently there is a conversion rate of up
to 10% of the degraded herbicide back to the original toxic form in the gut.’
In this study twice as many chickens fed the GM protein died as those fed
non-GM feed.
Beyond those noted harmful effects, there is also epidemiological
evidence of possible effects from GE foods that should be considered for
further study. In Britain, there has
been a 50% rise in soy allergies reported since imports of GE soya began.[53]
Doctors in Ireland reported a rise in soya allergies in children since the
start of GM soya imports.[54]
In the U.S. food derived illnesses are believed to have doubled over the last
seven years beginning at the introduction of GE foods to the market.[55]
Personal Views and Conclusions
The prospect of genetic engineering holds great promise for future
benefits. To improve the quality and
distribution of food and agriceuticals, thereby providing nutritious food and
medicines to the people all over the world is a fantastic and honorable
undertaking. Moreover, the creation of
organisms that will help to clean up our natural environment by reducing
pollutants, heavy metal contamination and via the development of cleaner
sources of energy would be of enormous value to the planet. Monsanto corporation’s new marketing
tag-line “imAGine” conjures visions of health, bird’s singing, and lush
gardens.[56]
Those visions are immediately soured however, when this writer
considers history. Monsanto – an
industry leader and self-professed “life science” company was also the creator
of such noxious chemicals as DDT, Agent Orange, PCB’s, dioxin and other toxic
pesticides that damaged the environment and proved hazardous to the health of
humans and wildlife.[57] This knowledge combined with the outrage
shown by environmental organizations, independent researchers, organic farmers
and the Union of Concerned Scientists over the introduction of genetically
modified organisms into the environment and marketplace casts intense doubt
upon the safety and efficacy of genetic engineering as it presently
stands.
Although environmental concerns fall outside of the scope of this
paper, numerous concerns have been raised and substantiated including:[58]
v Elevated pest and
weed tolerance to plants engineered to express their own pesticides and
herbicides leading to increased pesticide use (and corresponding health and
environmental dangers).
v Risks to
non-target species, such as in the Monarch butterfly example.
v Loss of ability
to use Bt by organic farmers (a pesticide that breaks down quickly and is used
at low doses by organic farmers) due to its introduction into the environment
by GE crops.
v “Biopollution”
or “genetic drift”, in which pollen from GE crops migrates to contaminate
nearby organic farms.
v Development of
monocultures due to lack of plant variety and biodiversity developed during the
last 10,000 years (lack of plant diversity was a known cause of the Irish
potato famine – because their limited variety of potatoes took on a virus which
wiped out the crops).
v Proliferation of
genetically-altered material in the environment (because it does not break down
over time, and which may cause mutations).
v Terminator
Technology (chromosomes of seeds are injected with a terminator gene that
ensures that once the seed is planted and grows, the seed cannot be saved for
the following year’s planting. This
forces the farmer to purchase new seed from the manufacturer each year or
purchase ‘reactivation’ chemicals that turn the seeds back on so that they will
grow. Either way – the farmer becomes
dependent upon the manufacturer of the GE seed)
Casting further doubt on the agribio industry is the notion that
those companies stand to reap huge financial benefits from the patenting of
life-forms. Grower’s will become
dependent upon the manufacturers, not only because they will have to buy seed
and appropriate chemical treatments from manufacturers, but if suddenly they
decide not to use those biotechnologies in their farming, their land has
already been contaminated by the GE crops.
Henceforth their crops will test positive for transgenics, and they will
not be able to sell their crops to organic markets.
Another perplexing phenomenon is that while manufacturers tout the
benefits of their GE products, they also vigorously lobby legislators to
support the principle of substantial equivalence, thereby not requiring the
labeling of GE foods. If the benefits
to consumers were so great, then why would GE producers oppose labeling? With labeling, consumers could readily see
differences in the quality and price of the conventional versus GE food, so why
resist labeling? The answer is
clear. Consumers in foreign markets
have rejected the notion that GE foods are safe. Americans are growing less comfortable with the idea as
well. A recent poll conducted by
American Viewpoint asked a random sample of registered voters if they felt that
GE foods should be labeled. Of the
respondents, 88% agreed that GE foods should be labeled.[59] This is bad news for GE manufacturers whom
have turned some of their marketing efforts toward changing the public’s
perception of transgenic foods by trumpeting their “safety” and “rigorous
testing and oversight” by regulatory agencies.[60]
Based upon the research deficiencies supporting the safety claims
of GE foods together with the studies demonstrating harmful effects, this
writer approaches genetically engineered foods with great caution. Further, commercialization of GE foods
should be suspended and withdrawn until thorough testing measures are developed
with the goal of gaining a complete understanding of the effects of gene
engineering. At the very least, GE
foods should be labeled so that consumers are informed and have the free choice
to buy GE foods or not.
[1] Cummins, R., Lilliston, B., Genetically Engineered Food, a Self-Defense Guide for Consumers, (Marlowe & Company, 2000), 1-15.
[2] Batalion, N., 50 Harmful Effects of GE Food, Americans for Safe Food, www.cys.com/50harm.htm
[3] Cummins, et. al. 4-5
[4] http://monsanto.com/monsanto/layout/media/02/06-26-02.asp, and Foods from Genetically Improved Crops in Africa, Co-produced by the San Diego Center for Molecular Agriculture, (http//:www.sdcma.org) and Africabio, (http//:www.africabio.com)
[5] Falk, M., Chassy, B., Harlander, S., Hoban, T., McGloughlin, M., Akhlaghi, A., of Life Sciences Research Office, Food Biotechnology: Benefits and Concerns, 1386, citing a study by Richard, et. al., given at a symposium supported by Monsanto.
[6] http://www.monsanto.com/Monsanto/layout/our_pledge/benefits.asp
[7] Ibid.
[8] Rugh, C., Senecoff, J., Meagher, R.B., & Merkle, S. (1998) Development of Transgenic Yellow Poplar for Mercury Phytoremediation. Natural Biotechnology, 16:925-928
[9] http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/layout/media/02/06-26-02.asp, and Foods from Genetically Improved Crops in Africa, Co-produced by the San Diego Center for Molecular Agriculture, (http//:www.sdcma.org) and Africabio, (http//:www.africabio.com)
[11]Foods from Genetically Improved Crops in Africa, Co-produced by the San Diego Center for Molecular Agriculture, (http//:www.sdcma.org) and Africabio, (http//:www.africabio.com)
[12] Cummins, R., et. al. 12.
[13] Ibid. 5.
[14] Ibid. 5.
[15] Ibid. 26.
[16] Kimball, A., Food Safety Review, a Publication of the Center for Food Safety, can be viewed at http//:www.centerforfoodsafety.org/facts&issues/volume1.pdf
[17] Foods from Genetically Improved Crops in Africa, Co-produced by the San Diego Center for Molecular Agriculture, (http//:www.sdcma.org) and Africabio, (http//:www.africabio.com) 5.
[18] http://www.monsanto.com/Monsanto/layout/our_pledge/benefits.asp.
[19] Batalion, N. 7.
[21] http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/censored.html
[22] Gurian-Sherman, D., Holes in the Biotech Safety Net, FDA Policy Does Not Assure the Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods, 1.
[23] http://www.SmithReport_041300.pdf 24.
[24] http://www.SmithReport_041300.pdf, citing section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.
[25] http://www.SmithReport_041300.pdf 24.
[26] Pusztai, A., Health Impact of GM Crops, Submission of evidence to the Clerk to the Health and Community Care Committee of The Scottish Parliament, 11/15/02
[27] Bucchini, L., Goldman, L., a Snapshot of Federal Research on Food Allergy: Implications for Genetically Modified Food, a Report Commissined by the Pew Initiative on Food Biotechnology, June 2002
[28] Greenpeace Briefing, 5/02 citing Riha, K., McKnight,
T.D., Grifing, L.R. & Shipen, D.E. (2001) Substantial Equivalence of Antinutrients and
Inherent Plant Toxins in Genetically Modified Novel Foods. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 38, 473-483
[30] Greenpeace Briefing, 5/02 citing Professor Bob Orskov,
evidence to the Chardon LL Public Hearing, 18th October, 2000. Available at http://www.defra.gov.uk/planth/pvs/chardon/001018.pdf
[31] A. Kimball, Food Safety Review, a Publication of the Center for Food Safety, http//:www.centerforfoodsafety.org/facts&issues/volume1.pdf
[32] Batalion, N. 8.
[33] Bucchini, L., et al 8.
[34] Millstone, E., E. Brunner, and S. Mayer. 1999 Beyond “substantial equivalence” Nature 401:525-526
[35] RI Vazquez Padron et al (1999) Intragastric and intra
peroneal administration of Cry1Ac protoxin from Bacillus thuringiensis induces
systemic and mucosal antibody responses in mice. Life Sciences, 64, 1897-1912.
[36] Fares, N.H., El-Sayed, A.K., (1998) Fine structural changes in the ileum of mice fed on delta-endotoxin-treated potatoes and transgenic potatoes. Natural Toxins, 6, 219 – 233.
[37] Buchini, L., et al
[38] Greenpeace Briefing (5/02) citing; Royal Society (2002) Genetically modified plants for food use and human health – an update. Policy document 4/02, 2/02, available at http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk.
[39] Ibid.
[40] Nordlee, Julie A., MS; et al. “Identification
of a Brazil-nut Allergen in Transgenic Soybeans. “ The New England Journal of Medicine: Vol
334. No.11 March 14, 1996
[41] http://www.soilassociation.org
[42] Ho, Mae-Wan, Ryan, A.., Cummins, J., Cauliflower Mosaic Viral Promoter – a Recipe for Disaster?, Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease, 1999; 11 (4).
[43] The Natural Food Commission, Submission on the Safety Assessment of Novel Foods and Novel Food Ingredients Produced Using Genetic Engineering, Submitted to Austrailia New Zealand Food Authority, quoting Dr. J. Cummins, 1/10/97
[44] Food Safety Review available at http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/facts&issues/volume1.pdf., citing British Medical Association, The Impact of Genetic Modification on Agriculture, Food and Health-Interim Statement, May 1999,
[45] Ibid.
[46] Greenpeace Briefing, 5/02 citing Coghlan, A. (1999) Splitting Headache – Monsanto’s Modified Soybeans are Cracking Up in the Heat, New Scientist, 20th November, 25.
[47]
Lappe, M. A., Bailey, E.B. Childress, C.C. &
Setchell, K.D.R. (1998/1999) Alterations in Clinically Important Phytoestrogens
in Genetically Modified, Herbicide-Tolerant Soybeans. Journal of Medicinal Food, 1, 241-245
[48] Greenpeace Briefing, 5/02 citing Inose, T. & Murata, K. (1995) Enhanced Accumulation of Toxic Compound in Yeast Cells Having High Glycolytic Activity: a Case Study on the Safety of Genetically Engineered Yeast, International Journal of Food Science and Technology, 30, 141-146.
[49] Greenpeace Briefing, 5/02 citing Shewmaker, C.K., Sheehy, J.A., Daley, M., Colburn, S. & Yang Ke, D. (1999) Seed-specific Overexpresssion of Phytoene Synthase: Increase in Cartenoids and Other Metabolic Effects. The Plant Journal, 20, 401-412
[50] http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org
[51] http://www.soilassociation.org
[52] http://www.soilassociation.org & www.defra.gov.uuk/planth/pvs/chardon/001018.pdf
[53] http://www.soilassociation.org York Nutritional Laboratory, reported in the Express, 12.3.99)
[54] http://www.soilassociation.org Dr. Elizabeth Cullen, co-chair