Shipra Bansal and Suresh Subramanian
|
|
Genetically
Engineered Foods Shipra Bansal and Suresh Subramanian |
|
About 70% of all processed food in US supermarkets is
genetically engineered & shy; from pasta to sauces, cakes and chocolates.
The Biotechnology industry is also creating new species of crops and animals
& shy; from transgenic canola and corn, to sheep and goats. This article
focuses on the issues concerning the production and use of genetically modified
(GM) crops and their effects on our collective health and the environment. The
specific case of Terminator and Traitor technologies are discussed in terms of
economic ramifications and the global control of seed production by a handful
of Transnational Corporations (TNCs). Genetic Engineering is a revolutionary new technology still in
its early stages of development. This technology has the power to break down
fundamental genetic barriers not only between species but between humans,
animals and plants. Genetic engineers find out which genes provide a desired
characteristic, such as color or resistance to a pesticide. They then snip the
gene from one organism and insert it into the DNA of another organism,
permanently altering its genetic make-up. For example, scientists have been
able to find genetic material that gives soybeans more resistance to the
popular pesticide, Roundup. This way, farmers can spray their crops without
worrying about damaging the plant. To achieve this effect, engineers are now
snipping, inserting, recombining, editing and programming genetic material. The
term "splicing" is often used to describe the manipulation of genetic
material. An increasing number of scientists warn that current
gene-splicing techniques are crude, inexact and unpredictable, and therefore
inherently dangerous. Still, pro-biotech governments and regulatory
agencies, led by the US, maintain that GE foods and crops are substantially
equivalent to conventional foods, and therefore require neither mandatory
labeling nor pre-market safety-testing. Public advocates have countered that
individuals have a right to know if they are eating GE food. A recent
decision by theFood and Drug Administration(FDA), however, has stated
that because there is no significant difference between GE and conventional
foods, no labeling of GE foods are required. New bills are currently being
introduced in congress that call for mandatory labeling. Despite the controversy surrounding GE, it is already widespread
in our food supply and environment. Over 60 million acres of GE crops are
presently under cultivation in the United States. According to the New York
Times, in 1999 over 55% of US soybeans and 36% of US corn was grown from
genetically modified seeds. Some of that crop was used as animal feed. The rest
went into a wide range of processed food products ranging from Kellogg's Corn
Flakes to Nestlé Carnation Alsoy Infant Formula . The biotechnology industry
estimates that almost 100% of US food and fiber will be genetically engineered
within 5-10 years. In Europe, India, Brazil and many other countries, however,
strong public movements against GE grain are sending strong anti-GE messages to
Monsanto and other biotech companies.
Increased toxicity: Scientists around the world
are warning that genetic manipulation can increase the levels of natural plant
toxins or allergens in foods (or create entirely new toxins) in unexpected ways
by switching on genes that produce poisons. And since regulatory agencies do
not currently require the kind of thorough chemical and feeding tests necessary
to determine safety, consumers have now become involuntary guinea pigs in a
vast genetic experiment. For example, in 1999, Rowett Institute scientist Dr. Arpad
Pusztai's found that GE potatoes, spliced with DNA from the snowdrop plant and
the Cauliflower Mosaic Virus (CaMv), a commonly used viral promoter, are
poisonous to mammals. GE-snowdrop potatoes, found to be significantly different
in composition from regular potatoes, damaged the vital organs and immune
systems of lab rats fed the GE potatoes. Most alarming of all, this damage was
most likely caused by the CaMv viral promoter, a promoter spliced into nearly
all GE foods and crops. Dr. Pusztai's groundbreaking research work
unfortunately remains incomplete as government funding was cut off and he was
fired after he spoke to the media. Increased cancer risks: In 1994, the FDA approved
the sale of Monsanto's controversial GE recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone
(rBGH), which forces dairy cows to produce more milk. Scientists warned that
the significantly higher levels (400-500% or more) of Insulin-Like Growth
Factor (IGF-1) in the milk and dairy products of injected cows could pose
serious hazards for human breast, prostate, and colon cancer. A number of
studies have shown that humans with elevated levels of IGF-1 in their bodies
are much more likely to get cancer. Not only is the growth factor harmful, but rBGH, itself, is a
health hazard. The US Congressional watchdog agency, the GAO, told the FDA not
to approve rBGH because increased antibiotic residues in the milk of
rBGH-injected cows, resulting from higher rates of udder infections requiring
treatment, pose an unacceptable risk for public health. Additionally, in 1998,
previously undisclosed Monsanto/FDA documents were released by government
scientists in Canada, showing damage to laboratory rats fed dosages of rBGH.
Significant infiltration of rBGH into the prostate of the rats as well as
thyroid cysts indicated potential cancer hazards from the drug. Subsequently,
the government of Canada banned rBGH in early 1999. The European Union has had
a ban in place since 1994. Although rBGH continues to be injected into 4-5% of
all US dairy cows, other industrialized countries have legalized its use. Even
the GATT Codex Alimentarius, a United Nations food standards body, has refused
to certify that rBGH is safe.
Food allergies: In 1996 a major GE food
disaster was narrowly averted when Nebraska researchers learned that a Brazil
nut gene spliced into soybeans could induce potentially fatal allergies in
people sensitive to Brazil nuts. Animal tests of these Brazil nut-soybeans had
turned up negative. People with food allergies (which currently afflicts 8% of
all American children), whose symptoms can range from mild unpleasantness to
sudden death, may likely be harmed by exposure to foreign proteins spliced into
common food products. Since humans have never before eaten most of the foreign
proteins now being gene-spliced into foods, stringent pre-market
safety-testing, including long-term animal feeding and volunteer human feeding
studies, are necessary in order to prevent a future public health disaster.
Mandatory labeling is also necessary so that those suffering from food
allergies can avoid hazardous GE foods and so that public health officials can
trace allergens back to their source when GE-induced food allergies do break
out. Damage to food quality & nutrition: A
1999 study by Dr. Marc Lappe published in the Journal of Medicinal Food found
that concentrations of beneficial phytoestrogen compounds thought to protect
against heart disease and cancer were lower in genetically modified soybeans
than in traditional strains. These and other studies, including Dr. Pusztai's,
indicate that genetically engineering food will likely result in foods lower in
quality and nutrition. For example the milk from cows injected with rBGH
contains higher levels of pus, bacteria, and fat. Antibiotic resistance: When gene engineers splice
a foreign gene into a plant or microbe, they often link it to another gene,
called an antibiotic resistance marker gene (ARM), that helps determine if the
first gene was successfully spliced into the host organism. Some researchers
warn that these ARM genes might unexpectedly recombine with disease-causing
bacteria or microbes in the environment or in the guts of animals or people who
eat GE food, contributing to the growing public health danger of antibiotic
resistance of infections that cannot be cured with traditional antibiotics, for
example new strains of salmonella, coli, campylobacter, and enterococci. EU
authorities are currently considering a ban on all GE foods containing
antibiotic resistance marker genes. Increased pesticide residues: Contrary to biotech
industry claims, recent studies have found that US farmers growing GE crops are
using just as many toxic pesticides and herbicides as conventional farmers, and
in some cases are using more. Dr. Charles Benbrook, a consultant for the
Consumers Union, recently published a summary of an upcoming report revealing
that genetically engineered Roundup Ready soybeans use 2-5 times more pounds of
herbicide per acre than conventional soybeans. The GE soybeans also yield 6%
less than their closest relatives and 11% less than high-yielding soybean
varieties. Crops genetically engineered to be herbicide-resistant account
for 70% of all GE crops planted in 1998. The claimed benefits of these
herbicide-resistant crops are that farmers can spray as much of a particular
herbicide on their crops as they want killing the weeds without damaging their
crop. Scientists estimate that herbicide-resistant crops planted around the
globe will triple the amount of toxic broad-spectrum herbicides used in
agriculture. The leaders in biotechnology are the same giant chemical companies
Monsanto, DuPont, AgrEvo, Novartis, and Rhone-Poulenc that sell toxic
pesticides. These companies are genetically engineering plants to be resistant
to herbicides that they manufacture so they can sell more herbicides to farmers
who, in turn, can apply more poisonous herbicides to crops to kill weeds. That
results in more poison in our crops. How will our bodies respond to such
aggravated levels of herbicides when we are already reeling under the effects
of the current slew of pesticides applied to our food? Genetic pollution: Genetic pollution and
collateral damage from GE field crops already have begun to wreak environmental
havoc. Wind, rain, birds, bees, and insect pollinators have begun carrying
genetically-altered pollen into adjoining fields, polluting the DNA of crops of
organic and non-GE farmers. Because they are alive, gene-altered crops are
inherently more unpredictable than chemical pollutants. They can reproduce,
migrate, and mutate. Once released, it is virtually impossible to recall
genetically engineered organisms back to the laboratory. An organic farm in
Texas was contaminated by genetically ­engineered crop from an adjoining
field, and are considering the allowable limits of genetically engineered crop
in organic food. Damage to beneficial insects and soil fertility: Earlier
this year, Cornell University researchers made a discovery. They found that
pollen from genetically engineered Bt corn was poisonous to Monarch
butterflies. The study adds to a growing body of evidence that GE crops are
adversely affecting a number of beneficial insects, including ladybugs and
lacewings, as well as beneficial soil microorganisms, bees, and possibly birds. Creation of GE superweeds and superpests: Genetically engineering
crops to be herbicide-resistant or to produce their own pesticide presents
dangerous problems. Because pests and weeds often have very short life cycles
that allow them to mutate and adapt quickly, it is inevitable that pesticide or
herbicide-resistant organisms will develop. This means that stronger, more
toxic chemicals will be needed to get rid of the pests. We are already seeing
the emergence of the first superweeds as GE herbicide-resistant crops such as
rapeseed (canola) spread their herbicide-resistance traits to related weeds
such as wild mustard plants. Terminator and Traitor Technology: The
manipulation of an organisms genetic make-up has far reaching socio-economic
impacts, particularly for developing countries. The traitor and terminator
technologies were jointly developed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) and the Delta Land & Pine Company, a subsidiary of Monsanto. Terminator
technology alters the genetic makeup of seeds to render them unable to
reproduce. This means that farmers are forced to buy seeds from the
biotech companies each harvest, instead of being able to save seeds for the
next harvest. Traitor technologies extend the Terminator technology one
step further. Plants and seeds are engineered to have desirable characteristics
such as higher resistance to pests or to produce greater yields. These traits,
however, are programmed only to manifest with a designated pesticide or
fertilizer treatment, which is produced by biotech companies. Farmers using
such seeds will therefore be locked into purchasing expensive treatments to
ensure the health or success of their crop. Worldwide there has been an outrage against the use of the
Terminator and Traitor technologies. A number of governments in countries of
Europe and Asia have banned Monsanto and their local subsidiaries from
conducting field trials of the Terminator and Traitor seeds/plants. The Rural
Advancement Foundation International (RAFI) organization amongst many others
argues that Terminator should not be sold as seeds. [5] "They [Terminator
and traitor Technology] are damaged goods and the exact opposite of what a seed
ought to be ­ something that can reproduce itself from generation to
generation; which is one of the very basis an definitions of life itself".
Others have claimed that the Patent Office ought to invoke the clause of "ordre
public" and reject the entire patent on terminator; i.e. this
technology is immoral and definitely NOT for the public good. It potentially
places control of the entire world's food production in the hands of a few
Transnational Agricultural Corporations, thus compromising diversity and food
security. Monsanto as well as other companies have patents to use these
technologies. These patents will render seeds infertile and force hundreds of
millions of farmers who now save and share their seeds to purchase ever more
expensive GE seeds and chemical inputs from a handful of global biotech and
seed monopolies. Particularly vulnerable will be local and indigenous farmers
as they will be least able to afford the high-tech equipment. Together, these
technologies virtually guarantee biotech companies control over global food
production. The threat from terminator and traitor technologies is immense
not only at a socioeconomic level but also from a general health perspective.
Scientific literature from around the world is documenting likely long-term
problems that are already surfacing. These likely scenarios are based on our
knowledge of genetic crossover, the natural tendency of genes to mix within one
species in order to maintain diversity. India has just decided to allow the transnational seed giant
Monsanto to undertake large-scale field trials of a controversial genetically
engineered variety of Bt cotton. The insects have already developed resistance
to fourth generation chemicals known as synthetic pyrethroids, and they
continue to ravage the cotton now standing in Indian fields. Equally worrisome
to environmentalists and some farmers is the fact that the Bt cotton also
contains a gene for herbicide tolerance. Cotton growers will have to spray
their genetically crops with Roundup herbicide, a Monsanto chemical that is now
feared to be a carcinogen. Farmers in India have responded unequivocally to
genetically engineered crop: in the 1998-99 season, more than 500 cotton
growers committed suicide when their crop was devoured by insects which had
developed resistance to commonly used pesticides. Is There a Way Out? While GE is moving fast, there have been incredible victories
through citizen action. Europeans, who are the biggest importer of US grains,
have succeeded at the grassroots level to keep GE foods out of their supply. As
a result, US corn exports to the EU have fallen from $360 million a year to
near zero, while soybean exports have fallen from $2.6 billion annually to $1
billion ­ and are expected to fall further. Just as significantly,
activists in India have recently won a major victory against the biotech
company, W.R. Grace, who has been trying to patent their formulation of the
Neem tree. In America, last year activists successfully countered an
attempt by industry to allow organically labeled foods to be genetically
engineered. Currently, several large advocacy organizations have filed legal
petitions to put a moratorium on all GE foods unless the FDA can prove, with
adequate testing, that these foods are safe for human health and the
environment. Politicians are joining the bandwagon as well. Fifty-two members
of the US House of Representatives are now co-sponsoring a bill that calls for
mandatory labeling of all GE containing foods. Current surveys show that a majority of consumers say that they
are "concerned" about GE foods and that 90% support mandatory
labeling. The momentum is there to stop the uncontrolled introduction of GE
foods into our diet. Movements across the world are keeping these large
industries in check, even when the government seems to be sleeping on the job.
Yes, there is a way out, but it requires each of us to take action as
individuals through our power as constituents, as consumers and as leaders in
our communities. TAKE ACTION! Winning from biotech companies takes all of us working together
that is how the Europeans have kept GE foods out of their supply. There is a
place for everyone to apply his or her own skills and talents. Some suggestions
are:
An
educated and active public is key to making change. Even by having read
this article you know more than a majority of Americans. Use this
information to talk to others. Pass on this newsletter for others to
read. The following are some websites where you can find more
information on different aspects of GE food:
Protect your health and make a consumer
statement by purchasing organic produce. Activists have recently won a
victory ensuring that GE foods can not be introduced into organic foods.
As there are no other labeling laws, this is the only way to guarantee
that you are not eating GE food.
Due to
public outcry, many leading potato buyers - including McDonald's, Burger
King, Frito-Lay and Procter & Gamble - have announced that they are
eliminating GE potatoes from their brand-name french fries and potato
chips. Similarly, several supermarket chains and major food
corporations like Heinz, Gerber, Whole Foods, Wild Oats and Genuardi's
have announced plans to go "GE-free".
US
consumers are calling upon the Campbell Soup Company and Kelloggs to
remove genetically engineered ingredients from their products. The
organizations that created GE Good Alert are: Center for Food Safety,
Friends of the Earth, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy,
National Environmental Trust, Organic Consumers Association,
Pesticide Action Network North America, and the State Public Interest
Research Groups. Please visit
http://gefoodalert.org
If
you're short on time but want to help, support people fighting genetically
modified foods by donating one day's salary for it. |
|
|