Genetic Engineering: A disoriented priority
Home

GE crops have come to bring more profits to big companies not to common farmers. They have come to make it easy for the trade not for the consumers. Even at the cost of losing original variety, at the cost of contamination, at the cost of farmers, health, and environment. Social activist Sharada Gopal elucidates this emerging situation. It is almost a decade since genetically engineered foods have entered our lives. US saw the first genetically engineered plant in 1993. Now more than 60 plant species have been engineered, of which most of them have moved into fields from laboratory and now on their way to market. Rice, potato, soya bean, corn, cotton as well as many fruits, vegetables and trees have superseded evolution and become changed overnight. Who wants engineered foods at all? These engineered foods illustrate the priorities of research and development. Why do we want to supersede evolution? Why cannot we wait till the nature develops pest resistant variety of food crops? Is the world starving because of lack of food? Answer to all these questions is the same. It is not the need of mankind but the industry. When the first genetic engineered rot resistant tomato came into existence with its delayed ripening character, it was to benefit the food processing and transport rather than consumers. Genetically engineered growth hormone in cows to increase milk production came because the company had put lot of money into the new invention and it wanted to get back that money. The growth hormone was not withdrawn even though it had a genetically harmful effect on cow. Then came tobacco plant, which in turn called for increased use of weed killer, which is hazardous to plants, animals and humans. All have the same story to tell. In November 1993, Bovine Growth Hormone was approved by the US, Food and Drug Administration. BGH is the first product of genetically engineered bacteria. The Bovine growth hormone is first isolated from cows and then inserted into bacterial genes. The bacteria express growth hormone as their own and act as a mini factory of hormone. The soup of bacteria is injected back to cow. This induces the dairy cows to increase their milk production by 25 per cent. FDA has given permission for the sale of rBGH. Soon, a number of adverse, effect of hormone treatment on cows became too obvious. Reduced pregnancy rates, 80 per cent of increase in udder infections, occurrence of cystic ovaries, disorders of uterus and so on. Voices against rBGH There were a lot of consumer movements against the use of rBGH. Even though FDA certified the milk is safe for humans, it was of lesser nutritional value. Increased use of antibiotics to treat udder infection ultimately reached humans through meat and dairy products. Already the farmers had produced a surplus amount of milk and dairy products in America. In Texas, California, and other southern states of America they had to dump milk because of overproduction. Neither the quality is enhanced nor the milk is less expensive, more widely available or conveniently packed. rBGH remains in market simply to profit the manufacturers who sold the hormone. Monsanto, the giant producer Monsanto created this hormone with biotechnology. Because they produced it, they have to sell it to farmers who do not need it at all. Because there is overproduction, small farmers who produced less, had to close their farms. FDA did not ask rBGH milk to be labelled. Some farmers who did not use rBGH, voluntarily labelled their products. Monsanto Company sued those farmers and also dairy co-ops saying it only made people to believe rBGH milk is less safe. It also sued a company in Texas, which advertised its products as rBGH free. All the same, public campaign is growing. Schools in many towns have already banned buying rBGH milk. Public milk dumping is taking place in more than 100 towns. Toxic to natural balance, Bt Toxin Bt Toxin is also used in genetically engineered crops. Bacillus thuryngiensis (Bt) came as an answer to the scientists' long battle against varieties of pests. This group of toxins selectively kills serious pests such as caterpillars, beetles and butterflies. Bt Toxin could be transplanted into the gene of a crop species to provide internal defence mechanism against pests. As the plant would continuously produce toxins, the pests, which approach the crop would die immediately. There is no need to spray insecticide. This selective killing character itself is the weakness of the Bt toxins too. Those pests, which are non resistant to Bt toxins will die and only resistant varieties will remain in nature. As the competition goes down, resistant varieties will propagate faster.  This will demand for increased spraying of pesticides. Before developing genetically engineered Bt toxin crops the toxin was used widely by all farmers. So there is also a chance for the pest to develop resistance to Bt toxins. Ultimately the question of pest and pesticides remains. Biotech – a mean to meet human need? Biotechnology is often presented as the answer to feeding the world's hunger and population. But very little research and field testing is allocated to meet this challenge. Given the expensive nature of the technology, the companies cannot develop products for people who cannot pay for them. There is no way of reducing the price for the poor. Most of the world's hungry people are too poor to buy even traditionally produced crops, let alone biotech designed collection. The Syngenta Company is developing a rice variety with vitamin A producing gene implanted in it. The experiments are being carried on and the scientists have to still come out with sufficient vitamin in it. But the company is already making big claims over it and is saying they have produced the most proper food for the poor people in India. That this will prevent 40,000 children go blind every year because of lack of vitamin A. When Green Peace made a study on this it found out that, to fulfil daily requirement of vitamin A, one person has to eat a minimum of 3.75 kilograms of rice every day! A pregnant woman should eat more than this!! Consider how much a poor family has to spend on rice alone to prevent blindness. And if a family can spend so much on rice alone, it definitely is not a poor family! There are cheap drugs and drops available for prevention of blindness. But no company is interested in producing them, as there is hardly any commercial gain in and glamour attached to the deal. Even where the research does yield new varieties of crop that promise good yield and affordable grain for the southern farmers, increased production is not the issue at all. We have ample amount of food grown now. National grain storages are overflowing. It is the distribution of food and wealth, which is the real issue. Trade, agricultural subsidies, unsustainable agricultural practices are also important causes of world hunger. Developing high yielding varieties without addressing these other issues will have no impact on hunger problem. Gain, for whom? A possible consequence of biotechnology is dissection of the organisms into their genetic compounds and disqualifying the rest of it for existence thus removing it from the nature altogether. Southern countries have a wealth of flora and fauna, of which the northern countries have found tremendous commercial value. Ultimately biotechnology reduces the perceived value of an indigenous plant thus reducing the need for its conservation. It also puts an end to the livelihood of millions of plantation workers and farmers. Commercial production of West African sweetener, "thaumatin" is one such example. Similarly, commercial production of vanilla in laboratories will before long eliminate vanilla orchid and vanilla farmer. A variety of rapeseed has been developed by biotechnology, which contains a high content of laurate, a fatty acid used in manufacture of soaps and detergents. The traditional sources of fatty acid are palm and coconut oil, which are important export for south East Asians. Once laboratories start manufacturing more and more of rapeseeds these south East Asian nations will lose their income they depend upon. In USA and Canada engineered rapeseed has come into existence. Rapeseed has another story to tell. In Western Canada 40 per cent are growing engineered rapeseeds against herbicide, by name Roundup. Monsanto has developed and owns this gene. Rapeseed is an open pollinated plant. During harvest and transport, seed spills around uncontrolled. If a farmer grows genetically modified rapeseed, the neighbouring farmer gets a part of it whether he wants it or not. Soon the neighbouring field will be contaminated with GM variety. When Monsanto found out the neighbouring farmer had rapeseed without license, the company filed litigation against the farmer. Today it has become impossible for a farmer in America or Canada to call himself an organic farmer. Many of his products are no more organic even though he is growing them organically. He cannot sell his products as organic. Canadian honey is rejected by Holland as it had transgenic genes in it. In a nutshell one can very easily come to a conclusion that the bio-engineered crops have come to stay. They have come to increase production, not distribution. They have come to bring more profits to big companies not to common farmers. They have come to make it easy for the trade not for the consumers. Even at the cost of losing original variety, at the cost of contamination, at the cost of farmers, health, and environment. (Based on various sources including Greenpeace website and TWN articles.) Sharada Gopal can be contacted at: dabade_pal@yahoo.com

Home