GENTECH archive
[Index][Thread]
GE Debate v0.3
- To: gentech@ping.de
- Subject: GE Debate v0.3
- From: Roberto Verzola <rverzola@phil.gn.apc.org>
- Date: 30 Dec 99 11:50:03
- Resent-From: gentech@gen.free.de
THE GENETIC ENGINEERING DEBATE (v0.3)
compiled by Roberto Verzola
email: rverzola@phil.gn.apc.org
0. MAJOR CHANGES
0.1. Arguments that are specific to particular GE traits like
herbicide-tolerant crops, Bt crops, recombinant hormones,
promoters, antibiotic-resistance markers, etc. have been marked
appropriately (e.g., HT, BT, RBGH, CAMV, ARM, and so on).
0.2. Headers have been modified to reflect industry claims, which have
been put under the following general headings: safety claims,
scientific claims, economic claims, legal claims, and moral
claims.
1. ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT
1.1. This document aims to support the campaign against the risks of
genetic engineering (GE). It will try to summarize all claims
made by the proponents of GE, and the responses by the critics of
GE. Supporting data and summaries of scientific studies will be
included as much as possible.
1.2. I welcome suggestions, corrections, improvements and new
information to this document. Most important are corrections to
factual or argumentation errors/weaknesses. Style, syntax and
grammar corrections are also welcome. My real role is to
coordinate what will hopefully be a worldwide group effort.
1.3. Contributions we are most interested in are of two types: a)
facts, together with the source or URL, preferably both; source
can be an email posting or news item, but scientific publications
are preferred; peer-reviewed articles are even better; b)
arguments, whether for or against GE; we also want the strongest
arguments of the other side, so we can research how they may be
answered properly.
1.4. IMPORTANT: When sending me a suggested change or addition, please
do not (repeat: DO NOT) send me back the full edited document.
Send only the paragraph(s) you want to add/change, the version
number of the document you have (e.g., v0.2), and the section
heading of the paragraph (e.g., 1.4).
1.5. Updated versions of this document will be released regularly at
the GENTECH (gentech@ping.de) and BAN (ban@tao.ca) mailing lists.
You are welcome to post this document on any other mailing list
or website, but please post it in its entirety.
1.6. Some conventions: + is an argument in favor; - is against; ++ or
-- means this item is a new entry or is an edited version of its
earlier counterpart; * is for useful data which is neither for or
against GE.
2. SAFETY CLAIMS: GE-FOODS ARE SAFE
+ We have been doing biotech for thousands of years.
-- We have been doing traditional biotechnology
(fermentation, conventional breeding, etc.) for a long time; but
modern biotechnology or genetic engineering is a very recent
development, and the first commercial products were released only
in the early 1990s. If we look at our experience at DDT and other
toxic chemicals (produced by the more or less same firms now
engaged in GE), it took some 20-30 years to determine they were
bioaccumulating through the food chain and causing cancers and
around 50 years to determine that they were mimicking some human
hormones and disrupting our endocrine systems.
+ GE is just an extension of conventional breeding.
- GE and conventional breeding are radically different.
Conventional breeding works only within the same or closely
related species (e.g., bacteria to bacteria, corn with corn, pigs
with pigs, etc.) In contrast, GE involves mixing genes from very
distantly related species that in nature will never breed with
each other (e.g., bacteria to corn, or pig to human beings).
-- Actually GE is a new, experimental, very dangerous, AND
radical technology. The process causes unnatural mutation and
combination of the DNA in our food in a manner which excludes
nature out of the process. This means we and our children are now
eating lab-created, mutated and experimental "fake" food. They
are experimenting, not only with us and with our children, but
with the entire food chain. (From: pmligotti@earthlink.net)
- Whoever argues that GE is no different from conventional
breeding is probably laying the groundwork for the concept of
"substantial equivalence", that the products of genetic
engineering are as safe as the products of conventional breeding.
This dubious concept is often used as excuse to avoid thorough
and rigorous testing.
++ Horizontal gene tranfer across distant species occurs in
nature. Natural broad-species vectors exist; some do replicate in
Gram- bacteria, others only in Gram+. There are also vectors
which replicate in Gram- and Gram+ bacteria, and some organisms
transfer DNA to plants (eg Agrobacterium tumefaciens, A.
rhizogenes)
-- Where horizontal gene transfer occurs in nature, it is
often in connection with the emergence of more virulent or new
pathogens. GE is inherently risky because it uses the same
mechanism to facilitate the insertion of foreign genes through
bacterial or viral vectors.
+ GE is much more precise than conventional breeding.
- GE is only precise in so far as the foreign genes which
will be inserted into a target organism are known. But GE has no
control where into the target organism's genome the foreign genes
will be inserted. The insertion site is totally random and
unpredictable. Since genes do not operate in isolation, but
interact in a complicated way and change their behaviour in
response to influences from nearby and even distant genes, the
behaviour of the transformed target organism is also
unpredictable.
++ There are techniques that ensure a precise integration
into the genome (eg double recombination using a suicide gene or
by using chimeraplasty which precisely changes an already
existing gene)
-- The commercially-available GE-crops did not use these new
experimental techniques, but random techniques like the "gene
gun" or bioballistics.
++ Even with random methods, it is possible to determine the
insertion site(s) afterward and choose clones accordingly.
-- Even after the insertion site has been determined, the
interaction between the inserted promoter and miscellaneous
foreign genes on the one hand and the neighboring genes on the
other hand must still be determined. We know too little today
about most target genomes to determine these interactions
precisely.
- There is no data documenting the stability of any
transgenic line in gene expression, or in structure and location
of the insert in the genome. Such data must include the level of
gene expression, as well as a genetic map and DNA base sequence
of the insert and its site of insertion in the host genome in
each successive generation. No such information has been
provided by industry, nor requested by regulatory authorities.
(32) (See: "WILL GENETICALLY ENGINEERED CROPS MEAN ADULTERATED
AND TOXIC FOOD, BODIES, AND ECOSYSTEMS?", Michael W. Fox, Senior
Scholar/ Bioethics, The Humane Society of the United States 2100
L Street, NW Washington, DC 20037)
++ Crop varieties developed through conventional breeding do
not undergo feeding tests. Why should GE varieties?
-- GE destabilizes the target genome, so it involves
inherently higher risks than conventional breeding. Thus we
should assume that GE varieties are unsafe unless proven
otherwise through thorough long-term testing. Traditional
varieties of food crops have evolved with us for thousands of
years, and can be assumed to be safe unless proven otherwise.
Modern hybrids may or may not need to be rigorously tested
depending on the situation.
++ Problems attributed to GE-crops may also occur with
conventionally-bred hybrids especially when breeding with wild
relatives.
-- GE-crops are inherently riskier, because the results of
the random insertions are unpredictable. When we breed a natural
corn variety that is safe to eat with another natural corn
variety that is also safe to eat, we can reasonably assume that
the result would also be safe to eat, unless proven otherwise. No
foreign genes have been introduced. If we cause mutations through
GE (or even through high-intensity radiation), we cannot
reasonably assume that the mutant is safe to eat, without
thorough testing. If we breed this presumably unsafe mutant with
a natural corn variety, we cannot assume that the result is safe
to eat either.
-- By 1992, there were already 7 known instances of
unexpected results from GE. One can only imagine how many more
there have been in the interim. (Bereano, Philip and Nachama
Wilker, "Regulations for Genetically Engineered Foods," Science,
Vol. 258, 4 Dec 1992, p. 1561-2)
-- An example of GE unpredictability: Bill Vencill of the
Univ of Georgia examined the effects of heat on GE soya beans
after Georgia farmers alerted him to unexpected crop losses,
esp. during Georgia's two hottest springs since the beans were
launched in 1996. "In the years we saw the problems, the soils
were reaching 40 to 50 C," says Vencill. His team replicated
these conditions in lab growth chambers, comparing the hardiness
of the Monsanto plants with conventional strains. In soils that
reached only 25 C during the day, the GM Monsanto beans grew as
well as other beans. But in warmer soils, the GM plants appeared
stunted. In soils reaching 45 C, the differences were marked.
Vencill described the findings at a British Crop Protection
Council meeting in Brighton this week. "We saw lower heights,
yields and weights in the Monsanto beans," says Vencill. Worse,
stems of nearly all the GE beans split open as the first leaves
began to emerge compared with 50-70% of the other test plants.
This had occurred on farms, but had been blamed on fungal
disease. "Instead, we think the stem splits, and it exposes the
plant to secondary infection," says Vencill. Vencill suspects the
changes in plant physiology caused by the addition of GE
resistance to glyphosate, the herbicide marketed as Roundup by
Monsanto. These herbicide-resistant plants have been shown to
produce up to 20 per cent more lignin, the tough, woody form of
cellulose. "We think it might make the plants more brittle," says
Vencill. (See: Andy Coghlan, New Scientist, 20 Nov 1999)
2.1. CLAIM: GE-FOODS ARE SAFE FOR HUMAN AND ANIMAL CONSUMPTION
-- Summary: we do not know enough yet; some studies justify
certain concerns about human and environmental safety; more
studies need to be done; meanwhile, based on the precautionary
principle, we must assume that GE foods are not safe and take the
necessary precautions.
2.1.1. CLAIM: GE- AND CONVENTIONAL FOODS ARE SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT
+ We have established the substantial equivalence between
commercial GE foods and their conventional counterparts.
Therefore, we can assume that GE foods are as safe as their
conventional counterpart.
+ In September 1996, WHO and the FAO convened an expert
consultation on GE-food safety in Rome, which adopted the same
industry line that: 1) safety issues in GE-foods were "basically
of the same nature" as in foods from conventional breeding; 2)
the substantial equivalence concept can be used to show GE-food
safety; and 3) once substantial equivalence is shown, "no further
safety consideration is needed." (See: "Biotechnology and food
safety: Report of a joint WHO/FAO consultation", Rome, Italy, 20
Sep - 4 Oct 1996)
- The 1996 WHO/FAO report made clear that the participants
were invited "in their individual capacities and not as
representative of any organization, affiliation or government."
So the report describes individual opinions and not official WHO
or FAO position. (See: "Biotechnology and food safety: Report of
a joint WHO/FAO consultation", Rome, Italy, 20 Sep - 4 Oct 1996,
p.1)
- Biotech firms often refer to this 1996 report to falsely
claim that the "WHO/FAO have declared that Bt corn [or some other
GE-product] is as safe as its conventional equivalent for animal
and human consumption." Yet, the WHO and the FAO themselves have
no such official position.
++ The U.S. FDA has declared that GE crops are as safe as
their conventional counterpart.
++ On May 18, 1994, the US FDA announced that a GE tomato
was as safe as conventional tomato. In a nutshell, the FDA
position is that labeling isn't required unless a GE product
"differs significantly from its conventional counterpart" -- if
it contains a new sweetener, for example -- or if it introduces
an allergen. (Aberdeen American News, S.D.; Knight Ridder/Tribune
Business News)
- Because the FDA accepted the concept of substantial
equivalence, it did not require feeding and other rigorous tests
that pharmaceuticals or food additives normally require. (See
also "Revolving door" under "Government/Industry collusion")
-- Confidential documents made public in an on-going class
action lawsuit have revealed that the FDAs own scientists do not
agree with concept of "substantial equivalence between GE and
normal seeds.
-- The U.S. Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act prescribes that
additives like the foreign genes in GE foods can only be
recognized as safe based on tests that have shown the foods are
harmless. But no such tests exist for GM foods. So, although the
GRAS exemption was meant for substances whose safety has already
been shown through testing, the FDA is using it to avoid testing
and to approve substances based largely on conjecture - one that
is dubious in the eyes of its own and many other experts. (Steven
M. Druker, J.D., executive director of the Alliance for
Bio-Integrity, coordinator of the lawsuit against the FDA to
obtain mandatory safety testing and labeling of GE foods)
++ FDA can demand extensive safety testing if the new gene
"differs substantially" from those generally found in other food.
-- That's a hollow promise. All 44 crops that so far have
gained FDA marketing approval have avoided scrutiny because FDA
has accepted the industry's claims that they are "substantially
equivalent" to conventional food. (See: Rick Weiss, Washington
Post, 15 Aug 1999)
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/daily/aug99/gmfood15.htm>
- Some scientists have questioned substantial equivalence as
"a commercial and political judgment masquerading as if it were
scientific... primarily to provide an excuse for not requiring
biochemical or toxicological tests." (See: Letter to Nature by
Erik Millstone, Eric Brunner and Sue Mayer, 7 Oct 1999) (http:)
- The Codex Alimentarius itself, the UN agency which WHO and
the FAO defer to on food safety issues, has not adopted the
concept for its food safety assessments. (See: ) (http:)
- The British Medical Association rejected the notion that
GM foods should be assumed to be safe when they are said to be
substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts,
which is the basis of U.S. regulation of biotech foods. "This
concept does not account for gene interaction of unexpected
kinds, which may take place in GM foods," the BMA asserts. "The
possibility that certain novel genes inserted into food may cause
problems to humans is a real possibility, and 'substantial
equivalence' is a rule which can be used to evade this biological
fact." (See: "The Impact of Genetic Modification on Agriculture,
Food and Health", British Medical Association, May 1999)
-- In March 1998 a letter in the UK's Farmers Weekly
reported that livestock on farms from Nebraska to Iowa were not
grazing, as in the past, in fields of Bt corn. Unpalatability of
the Bt stalks was suspected. One farm specialist from Dawson
County, Nebraska, reportedly said: "At first we thought it was a
joke, but I have heard it enough now that we are looking into
what could be going on." (See: Farmers Weekly, UK, Mar 1998)
<http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/gmanimalgrazing.htm>
-- Animals reject "substantial equivalence"? After four
months of hearing anecdotes from Kansas to Wisconsin, it is time
to collect stories more thoroughly from farmers: About the hogs
that wouldn't eat ration when GMO crops were included. About one
farmer who said "if you want your cattle to go off their feed,
just switch them out to a GMO silage." About another whose cattle
broke through an old fence and ate down the non-GMO hybrids but
wouldn't touch the Roundup Ready corn, though "they had to walk
through the GMOs to get to the Pioneer 3477 on the other side."
About the cattle whose weight-gain fell off when switched over to
GMO sources. About the organic farmer with a terrible deer
problem on his soybeans, who drives out at night, and sees 40 of
them mowing down his tofu beans while across the road not one doe
is eating on the Roundup Readies. About the raccoons romping by
the dozen in the organic corn, while down the road not one ear
has been touched in the Bt fields. Even the mice will move on
down the line if given an alternative to these "crops". (See:
ACRES USA Special Report, 18 Sep 1999 by Steven Sprinkel,
Yankton, South Dakota)
-- Rodents reject "substantial equivalence"? Consider the
Flavr Savr tomato, which was given a gene to delay its ripening.
When scientists tried to feed rodents the tomatoes, however, the
animals wouldn't eat them, recalled Roger Salquist, a scientist
involved in creating the Flavr Savr. "I gotta tell you, you can
be Chef Boyardee and mice are still not going to like them." They
went so far as to force-feed the rodents through gastric tubes
and stomach washes. This made the rodents sick, and revealed
nothing about the tomato's safety. The tomato ultimately won
approval from the FDA but failed in the market in part because it
was so expensive. (See: Rick Weiss, Washington Post, 15 Aug 1999)
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/daily/aug99/gmfood15.htm>
-- Although these novel products are different enough to be
patented, the biotech industry and U.S. regulatory agencies say
they are no different from their natural counterparts. For this
reason, the U.S. FDA requires no pre-market testing on animal or
human subjects (as would be required of new drugs or food
additives) nor any labeling. "There isn't any difference between
a GM product and a natural food in terms of its impact on
consumer health," says Jim Maryanski, biotech coordinator for
FDA, which oversees the safety of fruits, vegetables and other GE
food products. FDA only requires a label if a product contains a
known allergen or is nutritionally different - for example if a
GM orange had more or less vitamin C, he says.
2.1.2. CLAIM: GE-FOODS DO NOT CAUSE ALLERGIC REACTIONS
-- One GE product you won't find on the market is a soybean
to which genes from a Brazil nut had been introduced. A New
England Journal of Medicine article in early 1996 suggested the
GM soybean could cause reactions in people allergic to Brazil
nuts. Pioneer Hi-Bred Intl of Johnson, Iowa - which had developed
the soybean and later funded that allergy study - said it won't
market the soybean because of the allergy potential. (Aberdeen
American News, S.D.; Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News)
** Pioneer Hi-Bred, the giant seed company, asked University
of Nebraska scientist Steve Taylor in 1995 to study a new soybean
they had invented. Pioneer had spliced a Brazil nut gene into
soybean, to make it more protein-rich. Taylor was to check if the
GM soybean would affect people allergic to Brazil nuts, a serious
concern because such people wouldn't think to avoid soy. Just one
of the nut's thousands of proteins was put into Pioneers' new
soybean, and the odds of that one causing the nut's allergies
were incredibly low, Taylor said. But one test, then another, and
finally a third showed that the GE protein was indeed a major
cause of Brazil nut allergies. In trying improve the soybean,
Pioneer had made it potentially more deadly; it quickly halted
the soybean project. Taylor's study is symbolic of all that is
both scary and reassuring about GM food. It proved that GM food
could cause an unexpected and potentially fatal reaction. But the
problem was detected before the product was marketed. Symbolic
because it was, and still is, one of the very few studies ever to
look directly for any harm from a GE food or crop. That dearth of
studies is the legacy of a U.S. policy that treats GM plants and
food to be substantially the same as conventional ones. (See:
Rick Weiss, Washington Post, 15 Aug 1999)
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/daily/aug99/gmfood15.htm>
++ This was a very predictable situation. The soya allergy
was caused by the same protein that was responsible for allergic
reactions to Brazil nuts.
-- If the allergy was predictable, why did Pioneer even
attempt to create that GE-soya?
+ The fact that the soya with the Brazil nut gene was
recalled and not commercialized shows that the regulatory system
worked.
-- The system may have worked in that particular case. How
about all the other cases of commercialized GE-soya?
- A study by the York Nutritional Laboratory, Europe's
leading specialists on food sensitivity, found that health
complaints caused by soya - the ingredient most associated with
GM foods - have increased by 50% in 1998. Researchers said their
findings provide real evidence that GE food could have a
tangible, harmful impact on the human body. It is the first time
in 17 years of testing that soya has crept into the laboratory's
top 10 foods to cause an allergic reaction in consumers. John
Graham, spokesman for the York laboratory, said: "We believe this
raises serious new questions about the safety of GM foods because
it is impossible to guarantee that the soya used in the tests was
GM-free." (See: UK Daily Express, 12 March 1999)
-- FDA scientists warn that GE foods could "produce a new
protein allergen" or "enhance the synthesis of existing plant
food allergens." Without labeling, people with certain food
allergies will not be able to know if they might be harmed by the
food they're eating. (NYTimes full page ad, 18 Oct 1999)
-- BT: A new study of Ohio crop pickers and handlers finds
that Bt can provoke immunological changes indicative of a
developing allergy. With long-term exposure, affected individuals
might develop asthma or other serious allergic reactions, notes
study leader I. Leonard Bernstein of the University of Cincinnati
College of Medicine. (See: Science News Online, Vol 156 No 1, 3
Jul 1999). This means that people must avoid ingesting even
"relatively safe" biopesticides like Bt.
-- BT: A health survey evaluated farm workers before the
spraying of Bt pesticides and 1 and 4 months after the spraying.
Two groups of low and medium exposure workers were also assessed.
While there was no evidence of occupationally-related respiratory
disease, positive skin prick tests were seen in exposed workers,
with a significant increase in the number of positive tests to
spores 1 to 4 months after exposure to Bt. The increase was more
significant in high rather than low exposure workers. The study
concluded that exposure to Bt may lead to allergic skin
sensitisation and induction of IgE antibodies or IgG antibodies -
or both. (Bernstein J L et al. 1999. Immune responses in farm
workers after exposure to Bacillus thuringiensis pesticides.
Environmental Health Perspectives. 107 (7): 575-582)
** BT: The EPA has been asked to approve a new kind of Bt
corn toxin called cry9C, seen as a test case of the degree of
risk the EPA is willing to accept. While other versions of Bt
break down harmlessly in the human digestive tract, cry9C can
survive digestion and remains stable in the human stomach. Thus,
its potential to cause allergies is higher. The FDA demands extra
allergy testing for new food with such stable proteins. AgrEvo,
the German firm seeking cry9C approval, has conducted some more
tests, including a comparison of cry9C's molecular structure with
known allergy-causing proteins. So far, no similarities have been
found. But as the EPA evaluates the corn for human ingestion, the
reality is that there is no surefire way of testing new proteins
like cry9C for their potential to trigger allergies. (See: Rick
Weiss, Washington Post, 15 Aug 1999)
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/daily/aug99/gmfood15.htm>
2.1.3. CLAIM: GE-FOODS ARE NOT TOXIC
- One case in which a GE-product might have resulted in
toxic contaminants is the L-tryphtophan case. A Japanese firm
that makes the food supplement L-tryphtophan changed its
production process and switched to GE bacteria, as the same time
removing some steps in their purification process. The new
process resulted in a toxic contaminant that could have come from
the GE-bacteria used in producing the L-tryphtophan. Before the
product could be recalled, it had killed 37 and hospitalized
1,500.
-- About 37 people died and some 1,500 became sick after
Japanese company Showa Denko K.K. produced the amino acid
tryptophan using GE - and inadvertently introduced a toxin. A Web
site operated by survivors of the 1989 outbreak agrees with those
basic facts, although one of the articles posted there lists only
28 deaths. (Aberdeen American News, S.D.; Knight Ridder/Tribune
Business News)
+ The L-tryphtophan contaminant came not from the
GE-bacteria but from a non-GE source which was overlooked due to
the change in the purification process,
- A non-GE contaminant cannot be ruled out. Unfortunately, A
mysterious fire destroyed all samples of the GE-bacteria used for
the production process, making it impossible for investigators to
conclusively determine the real cause. (See: )
-- According to some FDA scientists, GE food may bring "some
undesirable effects such as increased levels of known naturally
occurring toxicants, appearance of new, not previously identified
toxicants, increased capability of concentrating toxic substances
from the environment (e.g., pesticides or heavy metals), and
undesirable alterations in the levels of nutrients." In other
words, scientists from the FDA itself suspect that GE could make
foods toxic. (NYTimes full page ad, 18 Oct 1999)
- Dr. Arpad Pusztai found that a diet of potatoes engineered
to express the snowdrop lectin weakened rats' immune systems and
adversely affected the kidney, thymus, spleen, gut and brain of
the animals. If confirmed, Pusztai's conclusions will reinforce
concerns that gene insertion itself may create new toxins; it
will also implicate the toxin commonly used in other GE-crops -
the Bt toxin which, Pusztai says, is also a lectin. (See: )
+ The Royal Society of London reviewed Pusztai's study and
found it flawed and unworthy of publication.
-- After the Royal Society's review, however, Pusztai
submitted the results of his study to The Lancet, one of the
world's most prestigious medical journal, which decided to
publish the study. (See: The Lancet, Oct 1999)
* The UK's Royal Society has written to the Natural Law
Party indicating that it has called for Dr Pusztai's work to be
repeated because of the outstanding uncertainties it considers
arise from it. (From: "NLP Wessex" <nlpwessex@bigfoot.com>, 19
Nov 1999) In a way, this is a recognition by the Royal Society
that Pusztai's work deserves to be taken seriously, a reversal of
their earlier condemnation of Pusztai's work.
- The concern of pediatric neurologist Dr. Martha Herbert of
the Council for Responsible Genetics is "the immature gut and
immature body of infants." If introduced too early, even proteins
that are normally part of our diet can lead to auto-immune and
allergic reactions later on, she said. "If a substance harms
adults, it may well harm babies, the sick and the elderly more
severely, and after smaller exposures," Dr. Herbert warned in her
June 1999 statement. (See: ) <http://>
+ BT: The Bt formulation has been in use as a biopesticide
for decades and is not considered harmful to human beings. It is
one of the few insecticides that organic farmers are allowed to
use.
- BT: The Bt biopesticide is relatively safe, compared to
chemical pesticides, but it is not completely safe. The dried Bt
spores, for instance, may be harmful to the human immune system.
French scientists at le Bouchet army research labs found that the
spores caused lung inflammation, internal bleeding and death in
lab mice. Last year, French scientists isolated a Bt strain that
destroyed tissue in the wounds of a French soldier in Bosnia. The
strain, known as H34, also infected wounds in immuno-suppressed
mice. Now the same team has found that H34 can kill mice with
intact immune systems if they inhale the spores. Francoise
Ramisse of le Bouchet and her colleagues found that healthy mice
inhaling 108 spores of Bt H34 died within eight hours from
internal bleeding and tissue damage. (See: New Scientist, 29 May
1999)
+ BT: Spores from mutants of the Bt H34 strain which did not
produce the toxin were equally lethal to mice, suggesting that
the Bt toxin was not to blame. Researchers think the symptoms are
caused by other toxins. The bacterium's close cousin, Bacillus
cereus, produces a toxin that ruptures cell membranes. And in
1991, Japanese researchers showed that B. thuringiensis produces
the same toxin. (See: New Scientist, 29 May 1999)
+ BT: Since the natural Bt toxin is relatively safe, then
the GE-toxin in corn is safe too.
- BT: The Bt corn toxin is not identical to the natural
toxin. The natural Bt gene which produces the toxin was
substantially modified before it was transferred to corn. The
toxin gene in Bt corn is a truncated version (at both 5' and 3'
ends) of the Bt toxin and is the smallest fragment that still
possesses toxicity to insects. (See: M. Vaeck et al. Nature 328,
33-37, 1987, as cited by Heine Deelstra).
** BT: Why is it a bad thing if they are not identical?
-- BT: This means that, unlike the natural Bt toxin, the Bt
corn toxin has never existed in nature, until Bt corn started
synthesizing it. It is risky to put into our gut any substance
which our gut has never seen before, because we have not evolved
to handle such a substance. In our experience with synthetic
chemicals, this has led to various long-term problems like
cancers.
+ BT: The Bt natural gene produces a large, inactive
pro-toxin that is about 1200 amino acids in length. This
pro-toxin releases upon digestion by proteases (in the insects
gut) an active 68,000 Dalton fragment. So the pro-toxins of
plants and Bt may differ in length, while the active toxic
fragment is exactly the same in size and mode of action.
Truncation of sequences before and after the 'toxic fragment'
might affect, due to folding differences, (1) the crystallisation
properties and (2) the susceptibility to proteases of the
pro-toxin. The occurrence of (1) and/or (2) are not known to me.
(Heine J. Deelstra <h.j.deelstra@bioledu.rug.nl>, on GENTECH
list)
-- BT: The Bt corn toxin is up to 100 times more powerful
than the natural toxin. This is part of the high-dose strategy
which supposedly delays the development of resistance in corn
borers. However, such high doses may also be riskier to
non-target species, including human beings who ingest the toxin
when they eat Bt corn.
-- BT: The expression of the full-length [Bt] toxin was too
low to achieve pest resistance in plants other than tobacco
(against the tobacco hornworm) and tomato plants. Toxin levels
were so low that protection was not attained against less
sensitive, but agronomically-important insect pests. Researchers
then modified part of the Bt toxin coding sequence so that it was
efficiently expressed (and translated) in plants. This was done
by using a synthetic toxin gene for amino acids 1-453 (coding for
the same amino acids as the natural Bt toxin gene but using
codons preferred by plants) and fusing this with the (natural)
gene fragment encoding for amino acids 454-615. The rest of the
bacterial gene (amino acids 616-1178) was not used. Expression of
this gene in cotton plants showed that Bt toxin levels were
increased by 100 times and that Bt toxin constituted 0.02% of the
protein in the plant. (See: Recombinant DNA, 2nd edition by James
D. Watson et al. and Moleculaire Biologie van Schimmels en
Planten (in Dutch), 1998 by Prof. J.G.H Wessels, as cited by
Deelstra)
-- The genetically engineered sweetener Aspartame has caused
thousands of documented disease cases worldwide. (From:
pmligotti@earthlink.net)
2.1.4. CLAIM: GE-FOODS DO NOT CAUSE CANCER
- HT: Since herbicide-resistant GE-crops lead to greater
herbicide use, cancer risk can also come from exposure to higher
levels of herbicides like bromoxynil (Rhone-Poulenc's Buctril)
and glyphosate (Monsanto's Roundup). Authors Marc Lappe and Britt
Bailey (Against the Grain, 1998) warn that bromoxynil
bioaccumulates, because it is fat-soluble. Rat and rabbit studies
have shown birth defects, other developmental disorders in
fetuses, tumors, and carcinomas at levels ranging from 20 to 300
parts per million. (See: Lappe, Marc and Britt Bailey; Against
the Grain, 1998) (http:)
- HT: Glyphosate exposure, on the other hand, can triple the
risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, say cancer specialists Dr.
Lennart Hardell and Dr. Mikael Eriksson of Sweden's Orebro
Hospital, in a study published in the American Cancer Society
journal (See: Cancer, 3/15/99) (http:)
- RBGH: U.S. food campaigner Robert Cohen warns about the
hormone Insulin-like Growth Factor-1 (IGF-1), identical versions
of which occur in cows and humans. In 1994, Cohen says, the U.S.
FDA approved the use of a GE-hormone (rBGH) in cows to stimulate
milk production. Using rBGH raises IGF-1 levels in cows' milk by
80%. IGF-1, Cohen warns, is a key factor in prostrate cancer
(Science, 1/98), breast cancer (The Lancet, 5/98), and lung
cancer (Journal of the NCI, 1/99). Most recently, Cohen cites a
report in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association
(10/99, p.1231), which found IGF-1 levels in the blood of milk
drinkers 10% higher than in non-drinkers. The implication:
GE-milk exposes its drinkers to higher cancer risks. (See: )
- RBGH: On December 15, 1998, the Center for Food Safety, on
behalf of a broad coalition, filed a legal petition in
Washington, D.C. against the FDA to have rBGH taken off the
market. The CFS petition cites mounting evidence that the
original testing of rBGH was flawed. In 1990 the FDA said BGH was
"safe for human consumption." Part of its findings were based on
90-day rat feeding studies in which they reported "no
toxicologically significant changes..." Based largely on this
conclusion, FDA did not require human toxicological tests usually
required for a veterinary drug. However in April 1998,
researchers from Health Canada, the Canadian equivalent to FDA,
issued a report contradicting FDA's findings. Canadian
researchers found studies showing that rats were absorbing rBGH
after all. In fact, between 20 and 30 percent of the rats were
developing distinct immunological reactions. Additionally, cysts
formed in the thyroid of some male rats and infiltrated the
prostate - both warning signs for potential cancer hazards.
- RBGH: Milk from cows injected with rBGH, which is not
analogous to normal BGH (7), has elevated insulin-like growth
factor that is implicated as a risk factor in human breast cancer
(8,9). (See: "WILL GENETICALLY ENGINEERED CROPS MEAN ADULTERATED
AND TOXIC FOOD, BODIES, AND ECOSYSTEMS?", Michael W. Fox, Senior
Scholar/ Bioethics, The Humane Society of the United States 2100
L Street, NW Washington, DC 20037)
-- RBGH: The EU Scientific Committee on Animal Health and
Animal Welfare on Animal Health Aspects of the Use of Bovine
Somatotropin, rBST, (adopted March 10th 1999) has recommended
that, due to foot problems, mastitis and injection site reactions
in dairy cows, rBST from an animal welfare and health point of
view, should not be used. This is an important recommendation
given the upcoming vote on rBST in International Trade.
-- RBGH: At the previous 22nd Codex session, the Codex
Alimentarius Commission decided to suspend the consideration of
Maximum Reside Limits for rBGH. The reason for the suspension was
so that scientific data could be re-evaluated. Since then, there
has been more evidence that rBGH is not safe. The 23rd Session of
the Codex Alimentarius Commission was held in Rome, June 28 -
July 3, 1999. Since the U.S. realized that they were not going to
win on this issue, they essentially dropped it.
++ These examples are not due to the effect of GE but rather
the use of the chemicals or hormones.
-- HT:/RBGH: But the higher cancer risks are the consequence
of GE products (more herbicide residues in food, higher IGF-1
levels in milk, etc.). People would not have been exposed to
these risks if HT crops or rBGH had not been developed.
2.1.5. CLAIM: GE-FOODS DO NOT GIVE RISE TO PATHOGENS
- "The evidence is now overwhelming that horizontal gene
transfer has been responsible for both the rapid spread of
antibiotic resistance and for the emergence of virulent strains
of pathogens in recent years... One main contributing factor to
the recent increase in the scope and frequency of horizontal gene
transfers may be the deliberate acts of genetic engineers to
break down species barriers. They do so by constructing a range
of chimaeric vectors for cloning, and transferring genes... Thus,
genetic engineering biotechnology has opened effectively opened
up highways for horizontal gene transfer and recombination, where
previously, there was only restricted access through narrow,
tortuous footpaths." (See: Mae Wan-Ho, Terje Traavik, Orjan
Olsvik, Tore Midtvedt, Beatrix Tappeser, C. Vyvyan Howard,
Christine von Weizsaecker, and George C. McGavin; Gene Technology
in the Etiology of Drug-resistant Diseases, 1998.
++ Their conclusion is unsupported by there data; no recent
increase of transfer has been observed.
-- In May 1999, the British Medical Association, which
counts some 80% or nearly 115,000 of Britain's medical doctors,
issued an official statement in May 1999 expressing concern over
the safety of GE-foods. The BMA recommended a moratorium on
planting commercial GE-crops in the UK "until there is scientific
consensus (or as close agreement as reasonably achievable) about
the potential long-term environmental effects." The BMA also
called for 1) segregation at source, "to enable identification
and traceability" of GE-foods; 2) labelling GE-imports and
banning unlabelled ones, if the industry refuses to segregate;
and 3) more robust systems of disease surveillance, to deal with
"potential emergence of new diseases associated with GM material
which will be obscure and difficult to diagnose". (See: "The
Impact of Genetic Modification on Agriculture, Food and Health",
British Medical Association, May 1999)
- Mae Wan-Ho and Angela Ryan of the UK Open University
warned last July 1999 that "no transgenic plant containing the
CaMV promoter should be released," because the Cauliflower Mosaic
Virus (CaMV) promoter is "very likely to recombine with other DNA
in the host genome, including dormant viral DNA, as well as with
other viruses in the host cell." The problem covers practically
all GE-plants released so far. These GE-plants, according to
Ryan, "have the potential to create new viruses or other invasive
genetic elements." (See: )
- There is potential for vector recombination to generate
new virulent strains of viruses, especially in transgenic plants
engineered for viral resistance with viral genes. In plants
containing coat protein genes, there is a possibility that such
genes will be taken up by unrelated viruses infecting the plant.
In such situations, the foreign gene changes the coat structure
of the viruses and may confer properties such as changed method
of transmission between plants. The second potential risk is that
recombination between RNA virus and a viral RNA inside the
transgenic crop could produce a new pathogen leading to more
severe disease problems. Some researchers have shown that
recombination occurs in transgenic plants and that under certain
conditions it produces a new viral strain with altered host
range. (Steinbrecher, R.A. (1996) From Green to Gene Revolution:
the environmental risks of genetically engineered crops. The
Ecologist 26, 273-282. As cited in: "Ten reasons why
biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the
environment and reduce poverty in the developing world"; Miguel
A. Altieri, UC Berkeley and Peter Rosset, Institute for Food and
Development Policy, Oakland, CA)
- The Cauliflower Mosaic Virus (CaMV) and HIV have
interchangeable components, according to five researchers of the
John Innes Centre and Sainsbury Laboratory (UK). (See John Innes
Centre Annual Report, 1998/1999) If they meet in nature, they
could recombine to form chimeric viruses with potentially
devastating properties. (jcummins@julian.uwo.ca, 6 Nov 1999) This
can happen, for instance, if pollen from a GE plant is inhaled by
an HIV-positive or AIDS-stricken person.
- The 1999 UK John Innes Centre and Sainsbury Laboratory
Annual report specifically acknowledges that this particular
viral promoter is prone to 'recombination' events (see
http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/camv.htm for more
information).
- One must consider not only the "fate" of GMOs but also the
genes and viruses or parts thereof, that have been inserted into
them. Such "naked DNA", in the form of recombinant and modified
nucleic acids, has been found capable of surviving and remaining
functional longer after organisms' death than was assumed
previously.(6,30) Furthermore, xenobiotics, especially dioxins
and various agrichemicals, can act as mutagens (31), altering the
structure and sequence of DNA and also increasing the
permeability of cells and the incorporation of foreign DNA into
living organisms. (See: "Will genetically engineered crops mean
adulterated and toxic food, bodies, and ecosystems?", Michael W.
Fox, Senior Scholar/ Bioethics, The Humane Society of the United
States 2100 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20037)
- The use of the Cauliflower Mosaic Viral promoter (CaMV)
has the potential to reactivate dormant viruses or create new
viruses in all species to which it is transferred. CaMV is known
to be found in practically all current transgenic crops released
commercially or undergoing field trials. This transgenic
instability increases the possibility of promotion of an
inappropriate over-expression of genes to the transferred
species. The development of cancer may be one consequence of such
inappropriate over-expression of genes. The scientists behind the
research "strongly recommend that all transgenic crops containing
CaMV 35S or similar promoters which are recombinogenic should be
immediately withdrawn from commercial production or open field
trials. All products derived from such crops containing
transgenic DNA should also be immediately withdrawn from sale and
from use for human consumption or animal feed". (See: Mae-Wan Ho,
Angela Ryan, and Joseph Cummins, "Cauliflower Mosaic Viral
Promotor - A recipe for Disaster?", Microbial Ecology in Health
and Disease (Dec 1999).
2.1.6. CLAIM: GE-FOODS DO NOT CAUSE ANTIBIOTIC-RESISTANCE
-- Many GE-foods contain antibiotic-resistance marker (ARM)
genes. These genes can be acquired by harmful bacteria through
horizontal gene transfer, making it more difficult to cure
diseases.
+ There is very low probability that ARM genes in GE-plants
can transfer to pathogenic bacteria.
- In May 1999, The British Medical Association called for a
"ban on the use of antibiotic resistance marker genes in GM food,
as the risk to human health from antibiotic resistance developing
in micro-organisms is one of the major public health threats that
will be faced in the 21st Century." (See: "The Impact of Genetic
Modification on Agriculture, Food and Health", British Medical
Association, May 1999) (http:/)
+ Modified DNA quickly breaks down in the gut, so it cannot
transfer antibiotic resistance
- Using an "artificial gut", Dutch researchers showed that
DNA remains intact for several minutes in the large intestine. If
the GE bacteria were a type normally found in the gut, such as
Enterococcus, the experiment showed each had a 1 in 10 million
chance of passing DNA containing ARM genes to an native gut
bacterium when they came in contact. There are normally around a
thousand billion gut bacteria, suggesting that many would be
transformed. If some normal gut bacteria were killed off - as in
the guts of people or animals in antibiotics - the transfer rate
from gut-type bacteria increased tenfold. (See: New Scientist, 30
Jan 1999)
-- Safer New Screen for GM Crops: Rockefeller University and
University of Singapore researchers can now screen for GM crops
without having to insert an ARM gene. The new method, described
in Nature, uses a gene that enhances a plant's use of its own
growth hormones. (Irish Times, 13 Sep 1999) If ARM genes are
safe, why are so much research funds being spent looking for
alternatives to these genes?
++ Because plants with ARM genes won't sell, that's why.
-- They won't sell because medical doctors, like members of
the British Medical Association, have warned against their
dangers.
-- Countries which have banned the use of ARM genes: Norway
- Countries where a ban on the use of ARM genes has been
proposed: Europe (See:)
2.1.7. CLAIM: THE QUALITY OF GE-FOODS IS BETTER
+ GE will "produce foods that are healthier, more
nutritious, and even taste and look better." (Alliance for Better
Food)
- No GE food produced to date has been shown to be more
nutritious than non-GE food. Most GE crops are only designed to
be resistant to specific herbicides, to produce their own
insecticides or to have an increased shelf life. (See: "13 Myths
about Genetic Engineering", Consumers for Education about Genetic
Engineering, Dunedin Polytech, as posted by Deborah E Leech
<dleech@mail.coin.missouri.edu> on the SANET list)
++ Most rice varieties today lack iron and vit. A, a health
problem for people who eat rice daily. In 1999, Swiss researchers
announced a GE rice variety with more beta-carotene, which the
body metabolizes to vit. A. Work is also underway on an iron-rich
rice variety, to be given free to poor farmers in dev. countries
thru the Rockefeller Foundation. See: <www.rockfound.org> (From:
m.j.cohen@cgiar.org)
++ Many fungal toxins are harmful to human health (to name a
few species: Aspergillus flavus, Claviceps purpurea etc), so
fungi-resistant GE plants could be even safer than their parental
strain.
- 71% of GE acreage is for HT-soya, which encourages farmers
to use more herbicides. Another 25+% is for Bt crops, which puts
a toxin in the food itself.
- RBGH: The use of rBGH to stimulate milk production in cows
resulted in udder inflamations, infections and other problems
affecting milk quality (See: ) (http:)
+ GE foods vary from non-GE foods only in the characteristic
that has been modified.
- The random insertion of foreign genes into the genetic
material may cause unexpected changes in the functioning of other
genes. Existing molecules may be manufactured in incorrect
quantities, at the wrong times, or new molecules may be produced.
GE foods and food products may therefore contain unexpected
toxins or allergenic molecules that could harm our health or that
of our offspring. (See: "13 Myths about Genetic Engineering",
Consumers for Education about Genetic Engineering, Dunedin
Polytech, as posted by Deborah E Leech
<dleech@mail.coin.missouri.edu> on the SANET list)
-- A study published July 1, 1999 in the Journal of
Medicinal Food presents new information about biologically active
components in GM soybeans resistant to Monsanto's Roundup
herbicide. Dr. Marc Lappe, Director of the Center for Ethics and
Toxics (CETOS) and principal investigator says, "Based on
corporate representations, the phytoestrogen concentrations of
Monsanto's Roundup Ready and conventional soybeans were supposed
to be equivalent. But the initial industry studies were performed
on unsprayed soybeans. We found significant differences when we
examined herbicide-sprayed soybeans analogous to those used in
foods. The study shows an overall reduction in phytoestrogen
levels of 12-14 percent in the genetically altered soybean
strains. Most of this reduction was attributable to reductions
in genistin and to a lesser extent daidzin levels, which were
significantly lower in modified compared to conventional soybeans
in both strains. The apparent differences found may be an
important discovery because consumers tend to buy soy products
for their naturally occurring phytoestrogens which are thought to
protect against breast cancer, heart disease, and osteoporosis.
As GE strains replace conventional ones, any differences in
phytoestrogen levels becomes increasingly important." (See:
"Alterations in Clinically Important Phytoestrogens in
Genetically Modified, Herbicide-Tolerant Soybeans", Maryanne
Liebert Publishers, J. of Medicinal Food, Vol. 1 No. 4, 1999) (6
Jul 1999) <http://www.cetos.org>
++ BC (beta-carotene) rice will help solve the widespread
problem of Vit. A deficiency.
++ Iron-rich rice will help solve the widespread problem of
iron deficiency.
-- The BC rice and the iron-rich rice contain the CaMV
promoter which, according to scientists Mae Wan Ho, Angela Ryan
and Joe Cummins, should not be used for GE transformations. They
also use an antibiotic-resistance marker (ARM) gene which,
according to the British Medical Association, should be phased
out.
2.1.8. CLAIM: GE-FOODS HAVE UNDERGONE THOROUGH SCIENTIFIC TESTS
+ GE food is extensively tested and the GE food at present
on our supermarket shelves is perfectly safe to eat. GE foods
have been one of the most thoroughly tested foods in history.
-- The US FDA does not require testing, just assurances from
the GE food manufacturer that the product is safe. Glickman
acknowledged that none of the agencies responsible for the safety
of GM foods - USDA, FDA or Environmental Protection Agency - had
enough staff or resources to conduct such testing. (Marian
Burros, Reuters News Service, 14 Jul 1999)
-- While Glickman stressed that most studies had indicated
that there were no known health risks to consumers, he said no
long-term studies had been conducted -- one of the central
arguments made by Europeans. In the past few years members of the
EU have refused to import many products that contain GE
ingredients. (Marian Burros, Reuters News Service, 14 Jul 1999)
- No GE food testing is done in America. We rely almost
entirely on the testing carried out by the GE biotech firms that
have spent billions of dollars developing the food and intend to
make a profit selling it to us. There are serious doubts about
the adequacy of the testing and the validity of the conclusions
drawn from the results. Independent long-term testing is required
before we can be sure that GE food is safe to eat. (See: "13
Myths about Genetic Engineering", Consumers for Education about
Genetic Engineering, Dunedin Polytech, as posted by Deborah E
Leech <dleech@mail.coin.missouri.edu> on the SANET list)
+ In 1996, only one GE-food feeding test had been published
- done by Monsanto (no harmful effects observed) (See: )
++ BT: A feeding study on broiler chickens by a Novartis
researcher was published 1998 (no harmful effects observed)
Abstract: "A 38-d feeding study evaluated whether standard
broiler diets prepared with transgenic Event 176-derived "Bt"
corn (maize) grain had any adverse effects on male or female
broiler chickens as compared to diets prepared with nontransgenic
(isogenic) control corn grain. No statistically significant
differences in survival or BW were observed between birds reared
on mash or pelleted diets prepared with transgenic corn and
similar diets prepared using control corn. Broilers raised on
diets prepared from the transgenic corn exhibited significantly
better feed conversion rations and improved yield of the
Pectoralis minor breast muscle. Although it is not clear whether
this enhanced performance was attributable to the transgenic corn
per se, or due to possible slight differences in overall
composition of the formulated diets, it was clear that the
transgenic corn had no deleterious effects in this study." The
authors also wrote that "to our knowledge, this is the first
published large-scale feeding study of transgenic corn." (See:
J.Brake (NCSU) and D.Vlachos (Novartis), "Evaluation of
Transgenic Event 176 Bt corn in Broiler Chickens," 1998, Poultry
Science 77:648-6??)
+ BT: The Bt toxin is safe to mammals, as confirmed by rat
feeding experiments. Unlike the gut of target insects, the
mammallian gut has no receptors which the toxin can bind to.
-- Pusztai's rat study on GE potatoes with the GNA lectin
published October 1999 - the only independent study so far -
observed some harmful effects (See: The Lancet, Oct 1999) (http:)
- No feeding studies had been done on swine or cattle (major
consumers of GE-corn and -soya), primates, or human volunteers
- No study on the long-term effects of GE-food had been done
- Studies of their effects in combination with other toxins
or with conventional chemicals are non-existent (See:) (http:)
+ Millions of Americans are already buying GE food and
nobody has gotten sick eating them.
++ Dr. Prakash adds that every aisle of the supermarket now
has GM corn and soybean derived products, from soaps and baby
foods to Coke, which contains GE high fructose corn syrup. And
all the products have been widely consumed for about two years,
with no apparent ill health effects reported. (Dr. C.S. Prakash,
a geneticist and professor of biotechnology at Tuskegee
University in Tuskegee, Ala.)
-- The feeding of GE-food to the American population is not
a scientific experiment but a criminal act of doing uncontrolled
experiments on human subjects without their knowledge or consent.
It is not possible to determine from the uncontrolled feeding of
unlabelled GE-foods to Americans how much foods have contributed
to the greater incidence of allergies, emergence of new or more
virulent pathogens, or higher cancer rates.
2.1.9. CLAIM: GE-FOODS DO NOT AFFECT OUR IMMUNE SYSTEM
-- Twenty two leading scientists recently declared that
animal test results linking GE foods to immuno-suppression are
valid. (NYTimes full page ad, 18 Oct 1999)
2.1.10. CLAIM: LABELLING IS NOT NECESSARY
+ One can always choose not to eat GE food.
- Because GE food remains unlabeled, consumers cannot choose
between GE and non-GE food. Should health problems arise, it will
be difficult to trace their source. Lack of labels also helps
shield firms that could be potentially liable. (Lappe, M and B.
Bailey l998. Against the grain: biotechnology and the corporate
takeover of food. Common Courage Press, Monroe, Maine. As cited
in: "Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security,
protect the environment and reduce poverty in the developing
world"; Miguel A. Altieri, UC Berkeley and Peter Rosset,
Institute for Food and Development Policy, Oakland, CA)
+ "We strongly oppose efforts to have mandatory labelling or
segregation of genetically engineered products." (US Sec of
Agriculture Dan Glickman, Dec 1998)
++ Food processors, too, have lobbied against labeling these
goods. In Maine, where labeling legislation was being considered,
the Grocery Manufacturers of America testified recently that "the
FDA has determined that biotechnology-enhanced foods are
equivalent to foods developed through crossbreeding and
traditional methods. Thus, compulsory labeling provides no
significant or useful information to consumers. In fact,
mandatory labeling of biotechnology products has the negative
impact of misleading consumers to believe foods derived from
biotechnology are harmful."
++ With European protests fresh in their minds, U.S. biotech
firms made a plea to the U.S. government recently: Defend U.S.
rules that keep GM foods unlabeled or risk a consumer backlash at
home. "We said to them that we really needed their voice because
we don't want this to spread to the United States," said Phillips
of the Biotechnology Industrial Organization. (St. Louis
Post-Dispatch, Washington Bureau, 11 Aug 1999)
-- U.S.: Glickman also said the administration was
considering asking the food industry to do voluntary information
labeling, a practice strongly opposed by the biotech industry but
one that has been demanded by the Europeans and some American
consumers. (Marian Burros, Reuters News Service, 14 Jul 1999)
-- U.S.: The government said yesterday that labels were
likely to be required on U.S. GE foods to give consumers more
information. "Some type of informational labeling is likely to
happen," Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman said in a speech.
(Reuters News Service, 14 Jul 1999)
-- U.S.: Nonprofit Mothers for Natural Law, of Fairfield,
Iowa, submitted nearly 500,000 signatures to federal officials
calling for mandatory labeling of GE foods at a June 17 event in
Washington, D.C. (Aberdeen American News, S.D.; Knight
Ridder/Tribune Business News, 1999)
-- U.S.: Even Americans who do not necessarily oppose GE
believe that such products should be labeled. In a survey by the
European company Novartis, more than 90 percent called for
labeling. In addition, more than 500,000 people signed a petition
to the FDA demanding mandatory labeling of such foods. The Center
for Food Safety, a nonprofit advocacy group, has filed a lawsuit
against the FDA to reclassify genetic modification as an additive
that would require labeling. When the Agriculture Department
proposed organic food regulations, more than 280,000 people filed
comments protesting the inclusion of GM foods as organic. (Marian
Burros, Reuters News Service, 14 Jul 1999)
-- U.S.: The Sierra Club declared with a flourish last week
that it is joining the debate on GM food. The group's president,
Carl Pope, wrote to President Clinton that the 550,000-member
club wants mandatory labeling of GM products. (St. Louis
Post-Dispatch, Washington Bureau, 11 Aug 1999)
-- U.S. Lawmakers seek labeling for GE food: Everybody who
eats food made in America deserves to know what's in it, a
bipartisan group of lawmakers said as they offered legislation to
create special food labels. "Today's limited scientific knowledge
warrants allowing consumers to make a better, more informed
choice," said Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, leader of an effort
to identify for the marketplace all GE food. (AP, 11 Nov 1999)
- U.K.: In May 1999, the British Medical Association, which
counts some 80% or nearly 115,000 of Britain's medical doctors,
issued an official statement expressing concern over the safety
of GE-foods. The BMA recommended a moratorium on planting
commercial GE-crops in the UK "until there is scientific
consensus (or as close agreement as reasonably achievable) about
the potential long-term environmental effects." The BMA also
called for 1) segregation at source, "to enable identification
and traceability" of GE-foods; 2) labelling GE-imports and
banning unlabelled ones, if the industry refuses to segregate
(See: "The Impact of Genetic Modification on Agriculture, Food
and Health", British Medical Association, May 1999)
-- SOUTH KOREA: The Korea Consumer Protection Board said
last Thursday its survey had found that 94.7 percent of the total
526 survey respondents said labelling for GM foods was necessary
-- 71.5 percent said all the time and 23.2 percent in some cases.
(Reuters, Seoul, 9 Sep 1999)
-- ASIA: Despite biotech industry and US govt complaints,
mounting public pressure has forced regulatory authorities in
Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, and Japan to begin to
implement programs of mandatory labeling of GE foods. Although
consumer and public interest groups in these countries have
criticized proposed labeling rules as incomplete and riddled with
loopholes, US trade officials are "concerned" about the possible
loss of "billions of dollars" in US grain exports to the region,
according to a Sep 1 Reuters story. Similar labeling demands are
building in Malaysia and the Philippines, while farm and consumer
groups in India have called for an outright ban on GE crops and
imports. (See: Cummins, Ronnie and Ben Lilliston, Campaign for
Food Safety News #22, 21 Oct 1999) <http://www.purefood.org;
http://www.organicconsumers.org>
-- The 15-country European Union, as well as Australia and
New Zealand, has ordered the labeling of foods with modified DNA.
The Japanese government has just published a list of 30 GM foods,
including tofu, that soon must carry labels. (St. Louis
Post-Dispatch, Washington Bureau, 11 Aug 1999)
-- E.U.: That problem of being able to back up a claim that
a food either contains or does not contain GE ingredients has
plagued regulators in the European Union, where a law went into
effect in September saying all GM foods must be labeled. (Rick
Weiss, Washington Post, 15 August 1999)
-- Last summer, two consumer groups sued the US FDA,
claiming that the agency's failure to institute a labeling
regimen for GM food is in violation of the Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act. The law demands that food additives not "generally
recognized as safe" be labeled. This spring, activists gathered
half-million signatures calling for labeling of GM food and
submitted them to Congress and other officials. (Rick Weiss,
Washington Post, 15 August 1999)
-- U.S.: The no-labels policy hinges on a decree by the FDA
in 1992. The FDA rules that food from new plant varieties is
"generally recognized as safe" (GRAS) and that it is no different
from conventional food in nutrition or in storage and handling
needs. So, no special labeling is needed. That was 4 years before
farmers, pushed by Monsanto and other biotech firms, began sowing
millions of acres with GM soybeans and corn. Neither the FDA nor
US food distributors anticipated the anti-GMO resistance abroad.
Now the chickens are coming home to roost, with a strong debate
over the adequacy of American food labeling. (See: St. Louis
Post-Dispatch, Washington Bureau, 11 Aug 1999)
- Countries which have adopted mandatory labelling: UK,
Australia-New Zealand Food Standards Council (Dec 1998),
- The EU has issued a directive requiring the mandatory
labelling of all GM crops and foods in the market
- Countries which are considering mandatory labelling:
Japan, South Africa, Philippines
- In Japan, 2,300 out of 3,300 local governments have asked
the national government to require mandatory labeling of GM food
(See: "Wake-up Call for Biotech Foods," Wisconsin State Journal,
22 Apr 1999)
-- Jusco Co Ltd said it will become the first major Japanese
supermarket operator to label food products based on the genetic
origin of the crops used. Jusco, which operates over 300 stores
nationwide, said it has decided to start labelling GE food before
the government's label requirements are implemented from 2001,
because of requests from consumers. (Reuters, Tokyo, 8 Sep 1999)
+ Labelling is a form of trade discrimination.
++ Most food processors and retailers are opposed to
labeling. They note that U.S. regulators have deemed GM food
safe; they warn that labels could cost consumers millions of
dollars. Mandatory labels, they say, would wrongly imply
questions about the safety or nutritional value of these foods.
"The concern," said Carl Feldbaum, president of the Biotechnology
Industry Organization, "is that a label would be seen as a
stigma, like a skull and crossbones." The industry is also wary
of labels saying "GE free," because such labels might imply
superiority, as in "fat free." The Grocery Manufacturers of
America (GMA) recently announced that it and other groups would
initiate a $1 million advertising and educational campaign to
counter the nascent U.S. anti-biotech and pro-labeling movements.
(Rick Weiss, Washington Post, 15 August 1999)
-- Consumers have a right to know and to choose what they
are eating. In the U.S., labelling falls under First Amendment
freedoms to exchange information. (See: Philip Bereano, Seattle
Times, Op Ed: "The Right to Know What We Eat," 11 Oct 1998)
-- RBGH: In 1993, Ben & Jerry's triggered a 3-year legal
battle by labeling its milk products as free from rBGH, a hormone
that boosts milk production. "People can say 'dolphin-free tuna'
and 'stone-ground wheat,' " said Liz Bankowski, a senior director
for the company in South Burlington, Vt. "We felt strongly that
people have the right to know how their milk is produced." After
tangling with federal and state regulators over the issue, Ben &
Jerry's won the right to keep the label as long as it is
accompanied by a disclaimer saying the FDA considers the milk
equivalent to conventional milk, and that in any case there is no
known way of testing milk to confirm whether it is really free of
the offending hormone. (Rick Weiss, Washington Post, 15 August
1999)
- Below is a list of processed foods that tested positive
for GE ingredients (September 1999). These tests were not
"safety" tests; they were only to establish the presence of
unlabeled GE ingredients. (NYTimes full page ad October 18, 1999)
- Frito-Lay Fritos Corn Chips * Bravos Tortilla Chips *
Kellogg's Corn Flakes * General Mills Total Corn Flakes Cereal *
Post Blueberry Morning Cereal * Heinz 2 Baby Cereal * Enfamil
ProSobee Soy Formula * Similac Isomil Soy Formula * Nestle
Carnation Alsoy Infant Formula * Quaker Chewy Granola Bars *
Nabisco Snackwell's Granola Bars * Ball Park Franks * Duncan
Hines Cake Mix * Quick Loaf Bread Mix * Ultra Slim Fast * Quaker
Yellow Corn Meal * Light Life Gimme Lean * Aunt Jemima Pancake
Mix * Alpo Dry Pet Food * Gardenburger * Boca Burger Chef Max's
Favorite * Morning Star Farms Better'n Burgers * Green Giant
Harvest Burgers (now called Morningstar Farms) * McDonald's
McVeggie Burgers * Ovaltine Malt Powdered Beverage Mix * Betty
Crocker Bac-Os Bacon Flavor Bits * Old El Paso Taco Shells *
Jiffy Corn Muffin Mix [Sources: Genetic ID (an independent
testing firm) and Consumer Reports (September 1999).]
<http://www.turnpoint.org>
- List of GE-foods in the U.S.: * Canola (oilseed rape) *
Chicory, red hearted (Radicchio) * Corn * Cotton * Papaya *
Potato * Soybean * Squash * Tomato (Source: Union of Concerned
Scientists) <http://www.turnpoint.org>
- A high percentage of the following ingredients have been
made from GE plants, and are commonly found in processed foods: *
Soy flour * Soy oil * Lecithin * Soy protein isolates and
concentrates * Corn flour * Corn starch * Corn oil * Corn
sweeteners & syrups * Cottonseed oil * Canola oil
<http://www.turnpoint.org>
2.1.11. CLAIM: SEGREGATING NON-GE CROPS IS IMPOSSIBLE OR VERY
EXPENSIVE
++ Complicating the issue, GE DNA or proteins can disappear
during processing, so products can test negative despite their GE
origins. At the same time, even a sprinkling of GE cornmeal or
soy flour from a previous shipment can make an entire grain silo
or rail car of otherwise non-GE food test falsely positive as GE.
(Rick Weiss, Washington Post, 15 August 1999)
-- Multinational grain marketer Archer Daniels Midland
recently announced that it will separately market non-GE soybeans
and will reject any GE corn not accepted in Europe. (See:
"Wake-up call for biotech foods", Wisconsin State Journal, 22 Apr
1999)
-- The Korean Bean Processing Association and the Korea
Soybean Food Association said Thursday that they want to
cultivate non-GM beans through free contracts with farming groups
in the U.S., Canada and Australia... Meanwhile the Korea Consumer
Protection Board said Wednesday that a GM bean ingredient has
been found in 18 tofu (bean curd) products out of 22 examined, or
81.8 percent, and many famous tofu makers were also found to have
used GM beans imported from the U.S. (Asia Pulse, 4 Nov 1999)
-- Reuters news service reported on Oct. 29 Canadian Wheat
Board chief, Greg Arason, saying that the giant Canadian grain
exporting agency "must mobilize to identify and segregate GM
wheat and barley from natural grain," to reassure consumers and
safeguard Canada's multi-billion dollar wheat export market.
Although GE wheat has not yet been commercialized, Monsanto and
other companies hope to market GE wheat in a few years. (Organic
View, Vol. 1 No. 18, 8 Dec 1999)
-- Reuters news service in Paris reported on Dec. 1 that
Minneapolis-based grain commodities giant Cargill is "studying
whether to adopt a system that would segregate GM soybeans from
non-GM organisms for the purpose of supplying European
consumers." Apparently Archer Daniels Midland and other grain
traders' booming sales of GE-free soybeans and corn are starting
to cut in to Cargill's profit margins. Both Cargill, ADM, and the
rest of the firms that make up the international grain cartel now
see the writing on the wall. (Organic View, Vol. 1 No. 18, 8 Dec
1999)
-- US-based Burger King told Farmers Weekly that although it
has not banned GM foods, no GM ingredients are used in its
products, including French fries. (Farmers Weekly, 3 Dec 1999)
+ Europe's banning of GE-foods is simply a protectionist
move. It is a trade issue, not a health issue.
- Even analysts from Deutsche Bank, the largest investment
bank in the world, who were themselves willing to concede that
GE-foods were safe, were telling their investors to sell their
Pioneer stocks, because the health concerns of Europeans are
real, not imagined. (http://www.dmg.com/central/ver40/index.html)
In fact, not only Europeans but also Americans have called for a
recall of GE-foods on the market. (See: anti-FDA lawsuit)
+ Segregation is going to be very expensive. The consumers
will eventually realize that the cost of segregation is
prohibitive and they will accept mixed foods.
- No segregation costs will be incurred in countries and
areas which have so far refused to commercialize or even
field-test GE-crops. These areas will therefore enjoy a huge
advantage compared to those who jumped early into the GE-crop
bandwagon. Other countries should learn from this experience and
stop even the field-testing of GE-crops until all the necessary
studies in biologically confined laboratories have been done and
there is widespread scientific consensus on the safety of a GE
product to be released.
2.1.20. OTHERS
- HT: Lappe and Bailey also noted the "remarkably high
estrogenic activity of soy isoflavones," elevated levels of which
have been found in herbicide-treated GE-soya. "If ingested by
nursing infants, these isoflavones can produce circulating levels
equivalent to 13,000 to 22,000 times the normal plasma estradiol
concentrations found in babies, with unknown and potentially
dangerous secondary effects," they warned. Early exposure to
estrogens, they wrote, is associated with sex organ dysfunctions
and higher risks of vaginal adenocarcinoma and other tumors.
(See: Lappe, Marc and Britt Bailey; Against the Grain, 1998)
+ HT: On the isoflavone statement reread
http://www.gene.ch/gentech/1999/Jul-Aug/msg00200.html (From: "H J
Deelstra" <H.J.Deelstra@bioledu.rug.nl>)
- The Scottish Crop Research Institute and the University of
Dundee, reported that the snowdrop lectin (the same lectin
Pusztai used in his GE-potato study) can bind with human white
blood cells, raising questions about safety of the lectin itself.
(See: The Lancet, Oct 1999) (http:)
2.2. CLAIM: GE-CROPS DON'T HARM THE ENVIRONMENT
- Summary: Once released into the environment, live GE
organisms will be practically impossible to recall and will be a
permanent source of genetic contamination and pollution. We
therefore oppose field releases, including field-testing, of
live GE organisms.
2.2.1. CLAIM: GENETIC CONTAMINATION (ESCAPE AND SPREAD) CAN BE AVOIDED
+ Pollen does not travel very far. Isolation distances of
50-100 meters will prevent any genetic contamination.
- Pollen can be carried by wind, bees and other insects,
birds, and other pollinators. Animals can eat seeds and then
travel long distances. Their droppings can contain viable seeds.
People can inadvertently transport seeds hundreds or even
thousands of kilometers from the source.
-- Studies in Denmark, Scotland and Lower Saxony in Germany
have shown that GMO rapeseed can pass on its traits to, not only
non-GMO rapeseed, but also weedy relatives up to 2.5 km away.
This can lead to superweeds.
-- Research by the Scottish Crop Research Institute reported
at the Gene Flow in Agriculture: Revelence for Transgeneic Crops
Conference, Keele University April 1999 (British Crop Protection
Council Symposium Proceedings No 72) reported oilseed rape pollen
at 4km from a field of oilseed rape.
- Scientists from the Scottish Crop Research Institute in
Dundee have shown that as high as 7% of the natural rape plants
in a field 400 meters away were pollinated by GM pollen. They
said that oilseed rape pollen had been found 4 km away from the
nearest source - further than it had been previously discovered.
They said "bees may be important pollen vectors over a range of
distances" and concluded that "the results suggest that
farm-to-farm spread of OSR [oilseed rape] transgenes will be
widespread." (See: New Scientist, April 1999)
- The European Commission has formulated 5-point emergency
plan if GE plants result in widespread illness or death of
wildlife. The plan includes: 1) methods and procedures for
controlling the GMOs in case of unexpected spread; 2) methods for
decontamination of the areas affected and eradication of the
GMOs; 3) methods for disposal or sanitation of plants, animals,
soils, etc. exposed during and after the spread; 4) methods for
isolating area affected by spread; and 5) plants for protecting
human health and environment in case undesirable effects occur.
(See: Independent, London, 4 Apr 1999)
- Steve Jones (professor of genetics, University College,
London): Those [transgenic] genes are going to get out into other
plants. Everybody knows that. And we have no idea what is going
to happen. (BBC, 12 Apr 1999)
- Spontaneous hybrids and backcrosses occured between GE
oilseed rape and its weedy relative, Brassica campestris, under
field conditions (Jorgensen, R.B. and B. Andersen. 1994.
Spontaneous hybridization between oilseed rape (Brassica napus)
and weedy B. campestris (Brassicaceae): a risk of growing
genetically modified oilseed rate. American Journal of Botany
81:1620-1626, as cited by Kapuscinski 1999).
- HT: Transgenic, herbicide-tolerant weed-like plants,
exhibiting high fertility and the same morphology and chromosome
numbers as in the weedy relative, were produced in field
experiments where GE herbicide-tolerant interspecific hybrids
were grown together with the weedy relative. (Mikkelsen, T.R.,
Andersen, B. and R.B.Jorgensen. 1996. The risk of crop transgene
spread. Nature 380:31, as cited by Kapuscinski 1999)
- HT: Arabidopsis thaliana, weed species often used for GE
studies, was found to be more prolific and promiscuous when
genetically modified. This implies that GE can substantially
increase the probability of transgene escape, heightening the
risk of producing weedy or pest populations of wild relatives. In
field studies, herbicide-resistant Arabidopsis thaliana produced
by gene transfer of a resistance allele outcrossed to wild
relatives roughly 20 times more often than ordinary mutants
expressing the same mutant allele as the transgenic plants.
(Bergelson, J., Purrington, C.B. and G. Wichmann. 1998.
Promiscuity in transgenic plants. Nature 395: 25, as cited by
Kapuscinski 1999)
- "This is only the latest in a long list of field trials
showing that genetically engineered crops, once released, are
totally uncontainable. They will become a nightmare for
conventional farmers to control. For farmers who do not want to
grow them, such as the organic sector, these crops will be almost
impossible to avoid." (Dr. Michael Antoniou)
- John Innes Centre, one of Europe's leading research
institute on GM crops, carried out research commissioned by the
UK Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. They reported: GE
crops will "inevitably" contaminate organic crops. Pollen and
seed pollution by GE crops could not be avoided entirely and
"acceptable levels" of contamination would have to be set. They
estimated that 1% of organically-grown plants in any one field
could become GM hybrids because of pollen spread. They concluded
that contamination by seed or pollen cannot be entirely
eliminated. (BBC, 17 Jun 1999)
-- Scientists have found GM pollen in beehives nearly 5km
from an official trial site, Friends of the Earth said today.
These are the first published monitoring results of GM pollen
from a farm-scale trial site and show GM pollen travelling
further than ever previously detected. It also reveals the scale
of the threat the trials pose to non-GM and organic farmers,
beekeepers and the wider environment, said Friends of the Earth.
The government's rules for farm-scale trials require only a
50-metre separation between GM crops and other fields. (Amanda
Brown, AAP, London, 30 Sep 1999)
-- Scientists have found GM oilseed rape pollen four and a
half kilometres from a trial site. Friends of the Earth had
contracted the National Pollen Research Unit at University
College, Worcester to monitor airborne pollen on roads and public
rights of way around the farm scale trial for spring oilseed rape
at Model Farm, Pirton, Near Watlington, Oxfordshire in June and
July 1999. Pollen traps were placed on six bee hives sited in the
area. Two were 500 metres from the crop, two were 2.75 kilometres
from the crop and two were 4.5 km. The pollen was collected and
analysed by a bee and honey consultant, Sarah Brookes, of
Evesham, Worcestershire. Six samples of airborne pollen and 6 of
beehive pollen were sent to the laboratory of the Federal
Environment Agency in Austria for DNA analysis. All six beehive
samples were found to contain GM oilseed rape pollen from an
AgrEvo variety and 2 out of 6 airborne samples. The Government's
rules for the farm scale trials require only a 50 metre
separation distance between GM crops and other fields. For seed
crops and organic crops the recommended distance is 200m. The
trial shows GM pollen at distances further than ever previously
detected and shows the scale of the threat the trials pose to
non-GM crops, beekeepers and the wider environment
-- HT: And scientists are finding that some GE crops, such
as herbicide-resistant canola in Canada, are cross-pollinating
with wild relatives more widely than had been predicted, creating
hardy weeds that can survive herbicidal sprays. (See: Rick Weiss,
Washington Post, 15 Aug 1999)
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/daily/aug99/gmfood15.htm>
+ HT: Gary Barton (Monsanto's director of biotechnology
communications): "Resistance can develop" but superweeds - hybrid
plants resistant to herbicide - were not an issue since they
could always be sprayed with other weedkillers to which they were
not resistant. (See: Independent, London, 25 Apr 1999)
-- HT: The potential transfer through gene flow of genes
from herbicide resistant crops to wild or semidomesticated
relatives can lead to the creation of superweeds. (Lutman, P.J.W.
(ed.) (1999) Gene flow and agriculture: relevance for transgenic
crops. British Crop Protection Council Symposium Proceedings No.
72. Stafordshire, England. As cited in: "Ten reasons why
biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the
environment and reduce poverty in the developing world"; Miguel
A. Altieri, UC Berkeley and Peter Rosset, Institute for Food and
Development Policy, Oakland, CA)
-- HT: There is potential for HT varieties to become serious
weeds in other crops (See: Duke l996, Holt and Le baron l990).
(Duke, S.O. (1996) Herbicide resistant crops: agricultural,
environmental, economic, regulatory, and technical aspects, p.
420. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton; See also: Holt, J.S. and H.M.
Le Baron (1990) Significance and distribution of herbicide
resistance. Weed Technol. 4, 141-149. As cited in: "Ten reasons
why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the
environment and reduce poverty in the developing world"; Miguel
A. Altieri, UC Berkeley and Peter Rosset, Institute for Food and
Development Policy, Oakland, CA)
- A scientific report, carried out for the British
government in 1997 but not published until now, concluded that GE
oilseed rape could breed with ordinary farmers' crops and make
them inedible. The study, conducted by the prestigious Scottish
Crops Institute for the Ministry of Environment, says that
contamination of farmers' ordinary fields is "inevitable" under
current farming practices. (UK Sunday Independent, 21 Feb 1999)
- Genetic contamination and pollution can occur through live
DNA fragments.
- There is evidence that foreign DNA can enter the body via
the gastrointestinal tract and cross the placenta (1,2). (See:
"WILL GENETICALLY ENGINEERED CROPS MEAN ADULTERATED AND TOXIC
FOOD, BODIES, AND ECOSYSTEMS?", Michael W. Fox, Senior Scholar/
Bioethics, The Humane Society of the United States 2100 L Street,
NW Washington, DC 20037)
-- STRAINS of farm-bred fish developed to grow fat quickly
are threatening to drive Britain's majestic wild salmon into
extinction. Millions of GM fish have escaped into the Atlantic
from offshore farms in Europe and America. And the new strains
are mating with wild salmon, polluting their gene pool and
producing hybrids that can't survive in the open ocean. (Mail, 19
Sep 1999)
-- Although the ecological risks issue has received some
discussion in government, international, and scientific circles,
discussions have often been pursued from a narrow perspective
that has downplayed the seriousness of the risks. (See: Kendall,
H.W., R. Beachy, T. Eismer, F. Gould, R. Herdt, P.H. Ravon, J
Schell and M.S. Swaminathan (1997) Bioengineering of crops.
Report of the World Bank Panel on Transgenic Crops, World Bank,
Washington, D.C. p. 30; See also: Royal Society (1998)
Genetically modified plants for food use. Statement 2/98, p. 16.
London. As cited in: "Ten reasons why biotechnology will not
ensure food security, protect the environment and reduce poverty
in the developing world"; Miguel A. Altieri, UC Berkeley and
Peter Rosset, Institute for Food and Development Policy, Oakland,
CA)
2.2.2. CLAIM: GE-CROPS REDUCE CHEMICAL USE
+ GE crops will reduce the use of herbicides, insecticides
and other chemicals.
++ BT: Prakash of Tuskegee University points out that before
Bt corn was introduced, farmers controlled the corn borer with
conventional insecticide sprays that are toxic not only monarch
butterfly larvae but also other desirable, non-target species
like lady bugs. By cutting down on using these insecticides, Bt
corn is a boon to beneficial species and the environment.
"Ultimately the biggest benefit of biotech will be cultivating
crops that use no herbicides, insecticides and fertilizers at all
- and that even have nutrients and vaccines added, possibly at
lower costs to consumers down the line," says Prakash.
-- BT: Corn farmers very seldom spray field corn for corn
borers. Doing so will simply be a waste of money, because the
borers are inside the corn stem, and can't be reached by the
spray. Thus, using Bt corn does not really reduce chemical use.
- HT: Crops engineered to be resistant to specific
herbicides may encourage more liberal use of those herbicides.
This has been anticipated by one manufacturer, who has applied to
ANZFA (Australia-New Zealand Food Authority) to have the
allowable residue of the herbicide glyphosate (Roundup) in foods
sold in New Zealand increased by 200 times. In areas of the USA
where GE-crops that produce their own insecticide are grown,
pesticide use has not decreased. (See: "13 Myths about Genetic
Engineering", Consumers for Education about Genetic Engineering,
Dunedin Polytech, as posted by Deborah E Leech
<dleech@mail.coin.missouri.edu> on the SANET list)
- The British Medical Association urged that: the risk that
GM crops may increase the use of herbicides and pesticides in the
environment needs to be comprehensively assessed to determine
their full environmental impact. (See: "The Impact of Genetic
Modification on Agriculture, Food and Health", British Medical
Association, May 1999)
-- Patent applications by Novartis of Basle, Switzerland
imply the need for more pesticides to get the best out of GM
plants. The applications (WO 99/35910 and WO 99/35913) were filed
after Novartis scientists realised that a wide spectrum of insect
pests was attacking Bt maize, its major GM crop. So they tried on
the Bt maize different combinations of their pesticides. Their
patent applications identify pesticide combinations that could
raise maize yields by 20 per cent. The same pesticides appear to
increase the yields of other GM plants, including herbicide-
tolerant ones. So Novartis extended its patent applications to
cover use of the pesticides on a long list of GM crops including
maize, cereals, soya beans, potatoes, rice, cotton and mustard.
Novartis' patent applications belie claims that GE crops will
reduce pesticide use. (See: Andy Coghlan and Barry Fox, New
Scientist, 18 December 1999)
2.2.3. CLAIM: GE-CROPS DO NOT HARM DIVERSITY
-- HT: The use of HT crops undermine the possibilities of
crop diversification thus reducing agrobiodiversity in time and
space. (Altieri, M.A. (1994) Biodiversity and Pest Management in
Agroecosystems. Haworth Press, New York. As cited in: "Ten
reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect
the environment and reduce poverty in the developing world";
Miguel A. Altieri, UC Berkeley and Peter Rosset, Institute for
Food and Development Policy, Oakland, CA)
- Ecological theory predicts that the large-scale landscape
homogenization with transgenic crops will exacerbate the
ecological problems already associated with monoculture
agriculture. Unquestioned expansion of this technology into
developing countries may not be wise or desirable. There is
strength in the agricultural diversity of many of these
countries, and it should not be inhibited or reduced by extensive
monoculture, especially when consequences of doing so results in
serious social and environmental problems. (Altieri, M.A. (1996)
Agroecology: the science of sustainable agriculture. Westview
Press, Boulder. As cited in: "Ten reasons why biotechnology will
not ensure food security, protect the environment and reduce
poverty in the developing world"; Miguel A. Altieri, UC Berkeley
and Peter Rosset, Institute for Food and Development Policy,
Oakland, CA)
- The trend to create broad international markets for single
products, is simplifying cropping systems and creating genetic
uniformity in rural landscapes. History has shown that a huge
area planted to a single crop variety is very vulnerable to new
matching strains of pathogens or insect pests. Furthermore, the
widespread use of homogeneous transgenic varieties will
unavoidably lead to "genetic erosion," as the local varieties
used by thousands of farmers in the developing world are replaced
by the new seeds. (Robinson, R.A. (1996) Return to
Resistance:breeding crops to reduce pesticide resistance.
AgAccess, Davis. As cited in: "Ten reasons why biotechnology will
not ensure food security, protect the environment and reduce
poverty in the developing world"; Miguel A. Altieri, UC Berkeley
and Peter Rosset, Institute for Food and Development Policy,
Oakland, CA)
-- A single GM fish released into the wild could wipe out
local populations of the original species, biologists warn in the
New Scientist (4 Dec 1999). William Muir and Richard Howard of
Purdue University, Indiana, studied fish carrying the human
growth hormone gene (hGH), which increases growth rate and final
size. US and British biologists are doing similar experiments
with GE salmon. Muir and Howard put hGH in embryos of Japanese
medaka, a common aquarium fish, which then matured faster and
produced more eggs than normal fish, rapidly spreading the new
gene. But only 2/3 of the GE medaka survived to reproductive age,
which led the population to dwindle. In a computer model, 60 GE
fish in a wild population of 60,000 fish, caused extinction
within 40 generations. Even a single GE animal could lead to
extinction, they found, but it would take longer. "You have the
very strange situation where the least fit individual in the
population is getting all the matings - this is the reverse of
Darwin's model," says Muir. The researchers say this is the first
evidence that GMOs could have catastrophic consequences on their
own species. (See: Environmental News Service, 2 Dec 1999)
-- An aquarium fish, Japanese medaka (Oryzias latipes),
modified with a growth gene hGH were more succesful in attracting
mates. Thus the hGH gene spread rapidly through the population.
However only 2/3 of the GE medaka survived to reproductive age
compared with wild medakas. Thus the spread of the hGH gene could
make populations dwindle and eventually become extinct. A
computer model showed that releasing 60 GE fish into a wild
population of 60,000 resulted in extinction in just 40
generations. Even a single modified fish could also result in
extinction, though over a longer period. The work may also apply
to salmon who have similar mating preferences. (See: Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences, vol 96, p 13 853)
2.2.4. CLAIM: THE DEVELOPMENT OF BT RESISTANCE CAN BE CONTROLLED
+ BT: Resistance will be controlled by using a high-dose
strategy to kill all corn borers, and requiring farmers to plant
20-40% of their fields with non-Bt corn, to provide susceptible
pests who will mate with resistant pests
- BT: Farmers find it ridiculous to be required to reserve
20-40% of their crops as feed for pests they want to eliminate in
the first place.
- BT: In the earliest days of the debate, the suggested
refugia size was 5%. Later, it rose to 10%. Now, it is 20-40%. If
the trend continues, they will be suggesting a 100% non-Bt field
soon, which is what we've been arguing for in the first place.
- BT: The high-dose/refugia strategy can only work
resistance is recessive and: i) dose should be very toxic so that
all heterozygotes for resistance are killed; ii) resistance
alleles are very rare; and iii) susceptible insects are within
mating distance of resistant insects. ECB have been found to
exhibit resistance to Bt toxin in a dominant way, which will
hasten instead of retard the spread of resistance. (See: Science
284: 965-967, 1999)
- BT: F.Huang, L.L.Buschman (both with the Dept. of
Entomology, Kansas State U) and W.H.McGaughey (USDA, Agric.
Research Center Service, Grain Mktg & Prod. Research Center): ECB
resistance to a Bt spray formulation (Dipel) appears to be
inherited as an incompletely dominant autosomal gene. This
contrasts with the resistance of other insects, which has been
characterized as recessive. If it is not recessive, the
usefulness of the high-dose/refugia strategy may be diminished.
- BT: Dominant mutants conferring resistance to Bt toxin can
be recovered from Corn Borers exposed to the toxin. Such mutants
would spread like wildfire through corn fields with refuge plots
because over half the off-springs of mating between mutant and
wild type insects would be resistant to Bt toxin. The refuge
would provide a rich breeding ground for spread of the dominant
mutants. (See: "Inheritance of resistance to Bacillus
thuringiensis toxin (Dipel ES) in the European Corn Borer";
Haung,F., Buschman,L., Higgins,R. and McGaugen,W., Science, 7 May
1999:965-967, as cited by Joseph Cummins)
- BT: Bt resistance has emerged among pink bollworms, a
major cotton pest, in Arizona cotton fields. (See: California
Farmer Magazine, mid-January 1999)
- BT: When Monsanto and other companies took the naturally
occurring insecticide bacterium Bt and spliced its operating
mechanism into crops, organic farmers were concerned that insects
would quickly become resistant to Bt, removing a crucial tool of
environmentally sound farming only to serve corporate interests.
These concerns are being borne out in last year's cropping
trials. (See: "Wake-up call for biotech foods", Wisconsin State
Journal, 22 Apr 1999)
-- BT: At the same time, recent studies have pointed to a
variety of other problems that seem to be emerging from Bt corn.
One report, for example, suggests that the EPA's primary strategy
for preventing the emergence of Bt-resistant insects-a plan that
calls for planting "refuges" of conventional corn in nearby
fields-may be doomed to fail because Bt resistance genes in
insects behave differently than scientists had thought. (See:
Rick Weiss, Washington Post, 15 Aug 1999)
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/daily/aug99/gmfood15.htm>
-- BT: Another study showed that Bt can alter the time it
takes an insect to reach adulthood. That could dash the EPA's
hopes that Bt-resistant insects will mate with Bt-susceptible
ones and give birth to offspring still vulnerable to the
chemical. (See: Rick Weiss, Washington Post, 15 Aug 1999)
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/daily/aug99/gmfood15.htm>
-- BT: GM plants which produce their own insecticides
closely follow the pesticide paradigm, which is itself rapidly
failing due to pest resistance to pesticides. Instead of the
failed "one pest-one chemical" model, GE emphasizes a "one
pest-one gene" approach, shown over and over again in laboratory
trials to fail, as pest species rapidly adapt and develop
resistance to the pesticide present in the plant. (Alstad, D.N.
and D.A. Andow (1995) Managing the Evolution of Insect Resistance
to Transgenic Plants. Science 268, 1894-1896. As cited in: "Ten
reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect
the environment and reduce poverty in the developing world";
Miguel A. Altieri, University of California, Berkeley and Peter
Rosset, Institute for Food and Development Policy, Oakland, CA)
-- BT: Not only will the new GM varieties fail over the
short-to-medium term, despite so-called voluntary resistance
management schemes (Mallet, J. and P. Porter (1992) Preventing
insect adaptations to insect resistant crops: are seed mixtures
or refugia the best strategy? Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B. Biol.
Sci. 250. 165-169 As cited in: "Ten reasons why biotechnology
will not ensure food security, protect the environment and reduce
poverty in the developing world"; Miguel A. Altieri, UC Berkeley
and Peter Rosset, Institute for Food and Development Policy,
Oakland, CA), but in the process may render useless the natural
pesticide "Bt," which is relied upon by organic farmers and
others desiring to reduce chemical dependence. Bt crops violate
the basic and widely accepted principle of "integrated pest
management" (IPM), which is that reliance on any single pest
management technology tends to trigger shifts in pest species or
the evolution of resistance through one or more mechanisms (NRC
l996). (National Research Council (1996) Ecologically Based Pest
Management. National Academy of Sciences, Washington DC. As cited
in: "Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security,
protect the environment and reduce poverty in the developing
world"; Miguel A. Altieri, UC Berkeley and Peter Rosset,
Institute for Food and Development Policy, Oakland, CA)
-- BT: When the product is engineered into the plant itself,
pest exposure leaps from minimal and occasional to massive and
continuous exposure, dramatically accelerating resistance.
(Gould, F. (1994) Potential and Problems with High- Dose
Strategies for Pesticidal Engineered Crops. Biocontrol Science
and Technology 4, 451-461. As cited in: "Ten reasons why
biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the
environment and reduce poverty in the developing world"; Miguel
A. Altieri, UC Berkeley and Peter Rosset, Institute for Food and
Development Policy, Oakland, CA)
-- BT: Bt will rapidly become useless, both as a feature of
the new seeds and as an old standby sprayed when needed by
farmers that want out of the pesticide treadmill. (Pimentel, D.,
M.S. Hunter, J.A. LaGro, R.A. Efroymson, J.C. Landers, F.T.
Mervis, C.A. McCarthy and A.E. Boyd (1989) Benefits and Risks of
genetic Engineering in Agriculture.BioScience 39, 606-614. As
cited in: "Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food
security, protect the environment and reduce poverty in the
developing world"; Miguel A. Altieri, UC Berkeley and Peter
Rosset, Institute for Food and Development Policy, Oakland, CA)
++ BT: Resistance has already been observed in Hawaii where
dusts containing Bt spores were repeatedly applied onto the same
field (up to 15X in one year). So, resistance development is not
unique to GE.
-- BT: Expressing the Bt toxin in the plant is the fastest
way to develop resistance, because it releases the toxin 24 hours
a day, in all parts of the plant, whether there is infestation or
not. This is like spraying daily whether there is a pest or not,
or taking antibiotics daily, whether you are sick or not. If
true, the Hawaii case stresses the need to use insect control
measures sparingly, only when they are really needed.
2.2.5. CLAIM: BT IS NOT HARMFUL TO NON-TARGET SPECIES
+ BT: The Bt toxin will not harm non-target species.
- BT: Iowa researchers have found Bt corn pollen deadly to
monarch butterflies. First, the Iowa study determined the amount
of corn pollen deposited on A. syriaca leaves within and adjacent
to a Bt corn field at 0 m, 1m, and 3m. The highest levels of
pollen deposition was found on plants within the corn field, and
lowest levels found at three meters from the edge of the corn
field. Leaf samples taken from within and at the edge of the corn
field were used to assess mortality of first instar monarch, D.
plexippus exposed Bt and non-Bt corn pollen. Within 48 hours,
there was 19% mortality in the Bt corn pollen treatment compared
to 0% on non-Bt corn pollen exposed plants and 3% in the no
pollen controls. (See: "Non-target effects of Bt corn pollen on
the Monarch butterfly (Lepidoptera: Danaidae)" by L. Hansen, Iowa
State University, Ames , IA 50011 and J. Obrycki, Iowa State
University, Ames, IA 50011. (Contact e-mail:
lrahnsen@iastate.edu)
- BT: Cornell University researchers, in a letter to the
journal Nature, May 20 issue, reported that pollen from Bt corn
harmed monarch butterfly larvae in laboratory tests. In the
Cornell study, one group of monarch (Danaus plexippus)
caterpillars fed on milkweed (Asclepias curassavica) leaves
dusted with pollen from Bt corn, another group fed on milkweed
leaves dusted with pollen from non-GE corn, and a third group fed
on leaves without added pollen. The researchers found that the
caterpillars that ate leaves with pollen from the Bt corn ate
less, grew more slowly and died sooner. Results were similar to
those reported earlier by Hansen and Obrycki
(http://www.ent.iastate.edu/entsoc/ncb99/prog/abs/d81.html) who
used leaves collected in corn fields. The Cornell researchers
(Losey, Rayor and Carter, who can be contacted at
jel27@cornell.edu) collected pollen and applied it to lab-raised
milkweed leaves. (See: Losey, J.J.E., L.S. Rayor and M.E. Carter
(1999) Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae. Nature 399: 214)
- BT: Concerns over impact on birds that feed on insects
targetted by Bt crops like the skylark, linnet and corn bunting
in the UK.
- BT: Bt crops have a negative effect on Chrysoperla carnea,
a beneficial insect, based on three studies by A. Hilbeck, M.
Baumgartner, et. al. of the Swiss Federal Research Station for
Agroecology and Agriculture. The green lacewings suffered
reproductive problems and reduced longevity. (See: Hilbeck, A.,
Baumbartner, M., Fried, P.M. and F. Bigler, 1998. Effects of
transgenic Bt corn-fed prey on mortality and development time of
immature Chrysoperla carnea (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae).
Environmental Entomology 27:480-487, as cited by Kapuscinski
1999))
-- BT: Still other studies suggest that Bt corn may be
inadvertently killing beneficial insects such as ladybugs and
lacewings, which eat insect pests. If true, then the insecticidal
crops may be giving reprieves to as many insect pests as they are
killing. (See: Rick Weiss, Washington Post, 15 Aug 1999)
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/daily/aug99/gmfood15.htm>
- BT: Beneficial insects that feed on insect prey reared on
transgenic insect-resistant crops exhibited increased mortality
and reduced developmental time (See: Birch, A N.E., Geoghegan,
I.E., Majerus, M.E.N., Hackett, C., and J. Allen. 1996/7,
Interactions between plant resistance genes, pest aphid
populations and beneficial aphid predators. Scottish Crop
Research Institute Annual Report, 1996/7: 68-72, as cited by
Kapuscinski 1999) Researchers led by Dr. Nicholas Birch of the
Scottish Crop Research Institute, Dundee, fed GE GNA potato to
aphids, which were in turn fed to ladybird beetles. The
ladybirds' lives were shortened by up to half the expected
life-span, and their fertility and egg-laying was significantly
reduced. Females were apparently affected more seriously than
males and a change of diet to aphids not exposed to GE plants
seemed to reverse the process. Potato aphids were fed to adult
two-spot ladybirds for 12 days, before switching back to non-GE
diet. Female ladybirds fed with GE-affected aphids died on the
average after 36 days, compared with the 74 days of those in a
control group fed on aphids not exposed to a GE diet. The study
was published in the scientific journal Molecular Breeding. (See:
Guardian, London, 4 Mar 1999)
** Butterfly populations are at an almost 30-year low in the
Sacramento Valley, adjacent foothills and the Sacramento-San
Joaquin River Delta, researchers say. Entomologists find the data
particularly worrisome because the decline is so widespread and
there is no clear reason for it. Some species that typically are
very common -- including orange sulphur butterflies -- have been
almost absent in the region this year. A few varieties were up in
numbers, but the overall trend was way, way down. ``In all
candor, I don't understand this,'' said Arthur Shapiro, an
entomologist at the University of California at Davis. ``Many
more species are down than up. If this were the stock market,
investors would be worried.'' Monarchs, large orange-and-black
migratory butterflies that are among the most easily identified
of insects, also declined. At Natural Bridges State Beach in
Aptos (Santa Cruz County), where Northern California monarchs
winter, 14,000 butterflies were counted, down from an average of
about 60,000. Shapiro said there is no evidence linking
California monarch declines with GM crops. Shapiro said there is
no apparent reason for the decline. ``Pesticide use patterns
haven't really changed and recent habitat loss hasn't been
sufficient to account for this,'' he said. ``Nothing has really
changed that can explain these oddities, unless something subtle
is going on that has finally reached a threshold level.'' (Glen
Martin, San Francisco Chronicle, 22 December 1999)
<http://www.commondreams.org/>
-- Shapiro's response in the above case of crashing
butterfly populations shows how some scientists can totally miss
the obvious. Bt toxin kills lepidopterans, butterflies are
lepidopterans. Since 1997, millions of acres of field have been
planted with Bt corn. How can Shapiro say that "there is no
evidence" linking these declines to GM crops, or that "nothing
has really changed that can explain these oddities"? At least,
he should point out the Bt crops are one possible cause, and this
should be explored further.
2.2.6. CLAIM: GE-CROPS HAVE NO HARMFUL EFFECT ON SOIL ECOLOGY
+ BT: Bt toxin from GE-plants is very short-lived in soil
(Eric Sachs of Monsanto, in response to a question re impacts of
Bt corn on soil microbial community, 18 Jun 1999 EPA-USDA Bt corn
workshop, as cited by Charles Benbrook)
- BT: GE crops are building up Bt toxins in the soil,
damaging the soil food web and harming beneficial insects. (Gene
Exchange, Union of Concerned Scientsts, Fall/Winter 1998)
- BT: New York University researchers found out that unlike
natural Bt toxin, the active toxin produced by Bt crops do not
disappear when added to soil, but become rapidly bound to soil
particles, and are not broken down by soil microbes. The
researchers contend that these GE Bt toxins can build up in the
soil, killing Bt-sensitive soil organisms and increasing
selection pressure for resistance to develop. In addition, a
broader range of organisms is likely to be susceptible to the
active, GE toxins. (See: Seedling, Mar 1999, Vol 16 No 1)
- BT: "Bound humic acid-toxin complexes were toxic to larvae
of the tobacco hornwork (Manduca sexta). The lethal concentration
necessary to kill 50% of the larvae (LC50) of the bound toxin was
comparable with that of the free toxin, indicating that the
binding of the toxin to humic acids did not affect insecticidal
activity... The result of these studies indicate that the toxins
from B. thuringiensis introduced in transgenic plants and
microbes could persist, accumulate, and remain insecticidal in
soil as a result of binding to humic acids, as well as on clays,
as previously described. This persistence could pose a hazard to
non-target organisms and enhance the selection of toxin-resistant
target species." (See: C.Crecchio and G.Stotzky 1998.
Insecticidal activity and biodegradation of the toxin from
Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. Kurstaki bound to humic acids from
soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 30: 463-470). See also: J. Koskella and
G. Stotzky, "Microbial Utilization of Free and Clay-Bound
Insecticidal Activity after Incubation with Microbes," Applied
and Env. Microbiology, Sep 1997: 3561-3568. See further: H. Tapp
and G. Stotzky, "Persistence of the Insecticidal Toxin from Bt
subsp. Kurstaki in Soil," Soil Biology and Biochemistry, Vol 30
No 4 1998: 471-476.)
- BT: Bt toxin present in crop foliage plowed under after
harvest can adhere to soil colloids for up to 3 months,
negatively affecting the soil invertebrate populations that break
down organic matter and play other ecological roles. (See:
Donnegan, K.K., C.J. Palm, V.J. Fieland, L.A. Porteous, L.M.
Ganis, D.L. Scheller and R.J. Seidler (1995) Changes in levels,
species, and DNA fingerprints of soil micro organisms associated
with cotton expressing the Bacillus thuringiensis var. Kurstaki
endotoxin. Applied Soil Ecology 2, 111-124. As cited in: "Ten
reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect
the environment and reduce poverty in the developing world";
Miguel A. Altieri, UC Berkeley and Peter Rosset, Institute for
Food and Development Policy, Oakland, CA) (See also: Palm, C.J.,
D.L. Schaller, K.K. Donegan and R.J. Seidler (1996) Persistence
in Soil of Transgenic Plant Produced Bacillus thuringiensis var.
Kustaki (-endotoxin. Canadian Journal of Microbiology (in press).
As cited in: "Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food
security, protect the environment and reduce poverty in the
developing world"; Miguel A. Altieri, UC Berkeley and Peter
Rosset, Institute for Food and Development Policy, Oakland, CA)
- BT: DNA released from living and dead cells can persist in
the environment and be transferred to other organisms. An
organism may be dead, but its "naked" DNA released from decaying
cells may remain biologically active for potentially thousands
years, especially in certain soils and marine sediments. (30)
Naked DNA (nucleic acids) ingested by mice can be transferred to
offspring and be voided and spread in animals' feces. (2) (See:
"WILL GENETICALLY ENGINEERED CROPS MEAN ADULTERATED AND TOXIC
FOOD, BODIES, AND ECOSYSTEMS?", Michael W. Fox, Senior Scholar/
Bioethics, The Humane Society of the United States 2100 L Street,
NW Washington, DC 20037)
-- BT: Studies Note Risks of GM Plants: Dr. Guenther
Stotzky, soil microbiologist at New York University, has found
that Bt toxin in the soil, as it might be found after a crop is
plowed under, can remain active for at least eight months. "We
were surprised," Dr. Stotzky said. "I'm sure it hangs around
longer. We just terminated the experiment after eight months."
- Ethanol-producing GE microbes had adverse effects on wheat
plants grown on sandy soil (Holmes, M.T., Ingham, E.R. Doyle,
J.D. and C.W.Hendricks. 1998. Effects of Klebsiella planticola
SDF20 on soil biota and wheat growth in sandy soil. Applied Soil
Ecology 326:1-12, as cited by Kapuscinski 1999)
-- BT: The Dec. 2 issue of the scientific journal Nature
<http://www.nature.com/server-java/Propub/nature/402480A0.pdf>
describes a study which indicates that Bt toxins from GE crops
are leaching into the soil through the plants' root systems,
damaging or killing beneficial soil microorganisms, and
disrupting the soil food web. The report also documents that Bt
toxins bind with soil particles for up to 243 days and remain
toxic to soil insects for long periods of time. This study comes
in the aftermath of other research indicating a hazardous buildup
of Bt toxins in the soil after Bt crops are plowed under. The
Nature study fuels the fire of a growing movement to ban all Bt
crops because of their documented damage to the environment and
their threat to organic agriculture. Last February the Center for
Food Safety, Greenpeace, and the International Federation of
Organic Agriculture Movements filed a lawsuit in US Federal Court
to force all Bt crops off the market. See: <http://www.icta.org>
(Organic View, Vol. 1 No. 18, 8 Dec 1999)
-- BT: Dr. Charles Benbrook (former member of the National
Academy of Sciences and head of Benbrook Consulting Services):
"What goes on underground in a field planted with today's Bt-corn
varieties is largely a mystery. Enhance the toxin levels 100- to
1,000-fold and it becomes a mystery of some consequence and
immediacy." (Organic View, Vol. 1 No. 18, 8 Dec 1999)
2.2.10. OTHERS
2.3. CLAIM: GE RISKS CAN BE MANAGED THROUGH USUAL RISK ASSESSMENT
2.3.1 CLAIM: WE HAVE ASSESSED THE RISKS FROM GE-CROPS AS MINIMAL
-- In fact methods for risk assessment of transgenic crops
are not well developed. (Kjellsson, G and V. Simonsen (1994)
Methods for risk assessment of transgenic plants, p. 214.
Birkhauser Verlag, Basil. As cited in: "Ten reasons why
biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the
environment and reduce poverty in the developing world"; Miguel
A. Altieri, UC Berkeley and Peter Rosset, Institute for Food and
Development Policy, Oakland, CA)
-- There is also justifiable concern that current field
biosafety tests tell little about potential environmental risks
associated with commercial-scale production of GE crops. (See:
"Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security,
protect the environment and reduce poverty in the developing
world"; Miguel A. Altieri and Peter Rosset, Oct 1999)
+ The benefits of GE outweigh the risks.
- Assessing risk means to anticipate the various potentially
harmful events that can occur, and totaling the probability of
each event multiplied by the consequence of that event. This
means an event of low probability can still be very risky if its
consequences are very serious. For GE organisms, we still lack
the knowledge to anticipate many of the harmful events, or to
measure their probability or consequences.
- Richard Lewontin, Professor of Genetics at Harvard
University: "We have such a miserably poor understanding of how
the organism develops from its DNA that I would be surprised if
we don't get one rude shock after another." (See: "13 Myths about
Genetic Engineering", Consumers for Education about Genetic
Engineering, Dunedin Polytech)
- Funds for research on environmental risk assessment are
very limited. For example, the USDA spends only 1% of the funds
allocated to biotechnology research on risk assessment, about
$1-2 million per year. Given the current level of deployment of
GE plants, such resources are not enough to even discover the
"tip of the iceberg". (See: "Ten reasons why biotechnology will
not ensure food security, protect the environment and reduce
poverty in the developing world"; Miguel A. Altieri and Peter
Rosset, Oct 1999)
- Risks increase as the GE organisms that carry them
multiply. Unlike oil spills, chemical releases or nuclear leaks,
which eventually dissipate, living GE organisms reproduce and
multiply, and they cannot be recalled once released.
- The British Medical Association urged that: the
precautionary principle should be applied in developing GM crops
or foodstuffs, as we cannot at present know whether there are any
serious risks to the environment or to human health involved in
producing GM crops or consuming food products. (See: "The Impact
of Genetic Modification on Agriculture, Food and Health", British
Medical Association, May 1999)
++ There is no such thing as zero risk or 100% safety.
Everything involves some risk.
-- We are not looking for zero risk or 100% safety. But we
must first objectively assess the actual risk from a GE product,
so that the public or whoever will be at risk can decide for
themselves if they want to be exposed to that risk or not. This
decision cannot be made the scientists or experts alone. Risk is
the product of the probability of an event and the cost of its
consequences, if it occurs. Today, we do not know enough about
the potentially harmful events that can occur from GE products,
nor their probability of occuring or the cost of their occurence.
We simply know very little today. This justifies holding off
field releases until the public has enough information to decide.
2.3.2. CLAIM: GE IS LIKE ANY OTHER TOOL WHOSE RISKS CAN BE MANAGED
-- GE is not like any other tool. It is a technology of
incredible power to disrupt the very basis of life on Earth. Most
risk assessments assume well-intentioned genetic engineers. Very
little public debate has occurred regarding the risks associated
with GMOs that may be created by ill- or evil-intentioned
technologists with access to typical university biotech labs.
- Joseph Rotblat, the British physicist who won a 1995 Nobel
Prize: "My worry is that other advances in science may result in
other means of mass destruction, maybe more readily available
even than nuclear weapons. Genetic engineering is quite a
possible area, because of these dreadful developments that are
taking place there." (See: "13 Myths about Genetic Engineering",
Consumers for Education about Genetic Engineering, Dunedin
Polytech, as posted by Deborah E Leech
<dleech@mail.coin.missouri.edu> on the SANET list)
2.3.10. OTHERS
2.10. OTHERS
3. SCIENTIFIC CLAIMS: GE TECHNOLOGIES ARE BASED ON SOUND SCIENCE
3.1. CLAIM: THERE IS SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS ON THE SAFETY OF GE PRODUCTS
-- There is no scientific consensus at all. In fact, the
scientific debate on various issues has intensified, with some
scientists insisting that GE crops are safe, other scientists
insisting that we do not know for sure at this time because of
lack of scientific studies, and an increasing number of
scientists insisting they are not safe.
-- Statement by scientists: We, the undersigned scientists,
call for the immediate suspension of all environmental releases
of GM crops and products; for patents on life-forms and living
processes to be revoked and banned; and for a comprehensive
public enquiry into the future of agriculture and food security
for all. ... The hazards of GM crops and products to biodiversity
and human and animal health are now becoming apparent, and some
even acknowledged by sources within the UK and US Governments. In
particular, the horizontal spread of antibiotic resistance marker
genes from GM crops will compromise the treatment of
life-threatening infectious diseases which have come back
worldwide. New findings show that the horizontal spread of
transgenic DNA can occur, not only by ingestion but via breathing
in pollen and dust. The cauliflower mosaic viral promoter, widely
used in GM crops, may enhance horizontal gene transfer and has
the potential to generate new viruses that cause diseases.
(Signed: 231 scientists from 31 countries, 14 Dec 1999)
<http://www.i-sis.dircon.co.uk>
3.2. CLAIM: PRO-GE SCIENTISTS ARE OBJECTIVE AND MOTIVATED BY PURE
SCIENCE
-- Some 90% of GE research is funded by the biotech
industry. (Data from Terje Traavik, University of Tromso, Norway)
3.3. CLAIM: STUDIES WHICH HIGHLIGHT UNSAFE ASPECTS OF GE ARE FLAWED
-- An increasing number of researches, published in
peer-reviewed scientific journals, are raising concerns about the
safety of GE crops. Instead of doing more scientific research to
confirm these findings, the biotech industry is instead engaging
in a dishonest media campaign to malign and discredit independent
scientists.
3.3.1. CLAIM: PUSZTAI'S LECTIN POTATO STUDY IS FLAWED SO IT IS RIGHT
TO SACK HIM
-- Dr. Arpad Pusztai, a world-reknowned expert on lectins,
had began a #1.6-million study which indicated that a GE-potato
diet weakened rats' immune systems and adversely affected the
animals' internal organs. When he shared with the media (with his
superior's permission) some of his concerns, Pusztai was promptly
sacked from his research post. His papers were confiscated, he
was prohibited from talking to the media, and his research team
was closed down.
- Some 20 scientists from 13 countries issued a statement
deploring the harsh treatment by Scotland's Rowett Research
Institute of world-renowned British researcher and lectin expert
Dr. Arpad Pusztai and demanding his reinstatement. (See: )
- In April last year [1998], a scientist, Arpad Pusztai,
from the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen, UK, unwisely
announced on television that experiments had shown intestinal
changes in rats caused by eating GE potatoes. He said he would
not eat such modified foods himself and that it was "very, very
unfair to use our fellow citizens as guineapigs". A storm of
publicity overtook Pusztai. He was removed from his job, a
sacrifice that did not quell public alarm in the UK or in Europe.
Last week (May 22, p1769 ) we reported that the Royal Society had
reviewed what it could of Pusztai and colleagues' evidence and
found it flawed, a gesture of breathtaking impertinence to the
Rowett Institute scientists who should be judged only on the full
and final publication of their work. (See: The Lancet, Vol 353 No
9167, 29 May 1999, "Health risks of genetically modified foods")
-- Monsanto Funded the Rowett Research Institute: The
Institute that sacked and alienated Arpad Pusztai over his GE
research received a sum of PST 140 000 before the controversy
blew up. Monsanto's media adviser claims the money was granted to
the Institute's Dairy Business Group research. After initially
supporting the findings disclosed by Pusztai on British
television last year, the Institute sacked him and accused him of
scientific inaccuracy and bumbling. (Source: Mail on Sunday,
13/2/99)
-- Despite the publication of Pusztai's research in the Oct
1999 issue of the Lancet, pro-biotech advocates continue to
repeat the industry lie that his research as "flawed".
-- Thanks to the courageous example of Dr. Arpad Pusztai and
other independent researchers, an increasing number of scientists
are coming out with their research results, which are not
necessarily favorable to the biotech industry.
3.3.2. CLAIM: HILBECK'S GREEN LACEWING STUDY IS FLAWED
-- Hilbeck's study was published in a peer-reviewed
scientific journal. (See: Hilbeck, A., Baumbartner, M., Fried,
P.M. and F. Bigler, 1998. Effects of transgenic Bt corn-fed prey
on mortality and development time of immature Chrysoperla carnea
(Neuroptera: Chrysopidae). Environmental Entomology 27:480-487)
3.3.3. CLAIM: LOSEY'S MONARCH BUTTERFLY STUDY IS FLAWED
-- Losey's research was published in a peer-reviewed
scientific journal. Losey warned that their lab findings should
not be automatically extrapolated to field conditions. This
simply means that field studies must also be done. Why were these
studies not done before millions of acres were planted with Bt
corn? (See: Losey, J.J.E., L.S. Rayor and M.E. Carter (1999)
Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae. Nature 399: 214)
3.3.4. CLAIM: STOTZKY'S BT TOXIN SOIL PERSISTENCE STUDY IS FLAWED
--Stotzky's studies on the soil persistence of both the
natural Bt toxin and the Bt corn toxin were published in
peer-reviewed scientific journals. (See: C.Crecchio and G.Stotzky
1998. Insecticidal activity and biodegradation of the toxin from
Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. Kurstaki bound to humic acids from
soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 30: 463-470). See also: J. Koskella and
G. Stotzky, "Microbial Utilization of Free and Clay-Bound
Insecticidal Activity after Incubation with Microbes," Applied
and Env. Microbiology, Sep 1997: 3561-3568. See further: H. Tapp
and G. Stotzky, "Persistence of the Insecticidal Toxin from Bt
subsp. Kurstaki in Soil," Soil Biology and Biochemistry, Vol 30
No 4 1998: 471-476.)
3.3.5. CLAIM: MAE WAN HO'S ANTI-GE STAND IS UNSCIENTIFIC
-- Ho's warnings against the use of the Cauliflower Mosaic
Virus promoter and the danger of horizontal gene transfer have
recently been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
(See: Mae-Wan Ho, Angela Ryan, and Joseph Cummins, "Cauliflower
Mosaic Viral Promotor - A recipe for Disaster?", Microbial
Ecology in Health and Disease (Dec 1999).
-- The biotech industry should stop maligning independent
researchers simply because their results raise concerns about
commercial products.
3.3.10. OTHERS
3.10. OTHERS
4. ECONOMIC CLAIMS: GE-CROPS ARE ECONOMICALLY COMPETITIVE
- Summary: Based on the actual experience after the 1999
harvests of U.S. farmers who planted GE crops, it is now clear
that the market considers GE crops as undesirable contaminants.
If mixed with a non-GE batch, that batch will be considered
contaminated and cannot be sold in some markets or will fetch a
lower price in other markets. Consumers want GE-free foods, more
and more firms are going GE-free, and GE-imports are banned in
some countries. Why plant an undesirable contaminant? Why let a
neighbor plant an undesirable contaminant which can
cross-pollinate and contaminate your own crops?
4.1. CLAIM: GE-CROPS WILL INCREASE YIELDS
- On the whole, GE crops do not lead to higher yields and in
many occasions, they have in fact produced lower yields.
- Dr. Charles Benbrook presented evidence that farmers who
use Monsanto's RoundUp Ready soybeans are getting lower yields
than farmers using conventional soybeans. (See: Campaign on Food
Safety News #20, 14 Jul 1999)
-- Some researchers have shown that none of the GE seeds
significantly increase the yield of crops. Indeed, in more than
8,200 field trials, the Roundup Ready seeds produced fewer
bushels of soybeans than similar natural varieties, according to
a study by Dr. Charles Benbrook, the former director of the Board
on Agriculture at the National Academy of Sciences. (Peter
Rosset, "World Hunger: Twelve Myths")
-- Recent experimental trials have shown that GE seeds do
not increase the yield of crops. A recent study by the USDA
Economic Research Service shows that in 1998 yields were not
significantly different in GE versus non-GE crops in 12 of 18
crop/region combinations. In the six crop/region combinations
were Bt crops or HRCs fared better, they exhibited increased
yields between 5-30%. Glyphosphate tolerant cotton showed no
significant yield increase in either region where it was
surveyed. This was confirmed in another study examining more than
8,000 field trials, where it was found that Roundup Ready soybean
seeds produced fewer bushels of soybeans than similar
conventionally bred varieties (United States Department of
Agriculture (1999) Genetically Engineered Crops for Pest
Management. USDA Economic Research Service, Washington, DC. As
cited in: "Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food
security, protect the environment and reduce poverty in the
developing world"; Miguel A. Altieri, UC Berkeley and Peter
Rosset, Institute for Food and Development Policy, Oakland, CA)
-- Dr Will McCarty, University of Mississippi Extension
Service Cotton specialist: "Before you plant transgenic
varieties, be sure you need the value-added trait. Also evaluate
the yields of varieties with the transgenic trait you desire, and
study the risk and benefit ratio, if any. In other words, if you
feel you need to plant Bt and the variety does not or has not
yielded well for you or in your area, consider the risk of not
using it and the potential cost of additional insect control
versus potential yield loss to planting it. The same can be said
for a transgenic variety for herbicide tolerance. Before you pay
extra for the convenience of using a particular herbicide
over-the-top, be sure the variety fits your farm and will yield
well. .... Also, transgenic varieties may not perform as well as
did their parents. Just because you have had good experience with
a particular variety does not mean you will have the same results
with a transgenic version." (Agronomy Notes, 5 Oct 1999)
-- Dr Alan Blaine, soya bean specialist, University of
Mississippi extension service: "The vast majority of the problems
soybean growers have encountered over the last couple of years
have been on relatively new varieties. Instead of taking 6 to 8
generations for a variety to reach the market, we are seeing
varieties blown up and put on the market in probably 3 to 4
generations. It is this trend that has caused many of you to
experience poor performance from many new varieties. Steer away
from planting a variety just because someone tells you how good
it is. Prove it to yourself and this should be done with no less
than 2 years of yield test data. Variations in growing conditions
cause varietal differences to be expressed, and 1999 really
exposed some potential weakness in several varieties." (Agronomy
Notes, 5 Nov 1999)
4.2. CLAIM: GE CROPS WILL REDUCE FARMERS' COSTS AND RAISE THEIR INCOME
- GE seeds cost 20-30% higher than conventional seeds.
+ BT: Bt corn will result in lower pesticide costs.
-- BT: This is offset by the higher seed costs, by the need
to maintain 20-40% of the field as sacrificial refugia for
non-resistant corn borers, and the lower market price of GE corn.
- Farmers incur higher costs to segregate GE from
conventional crops.
-- Because of risks associated with GE crops insurance
companies in the USA and UK are now reluctant to insure them.
This can raise insurance costs. (See: "13 Myths about Genetic
Engineering", Consumers for Education about Genetic Engineering,
Dunedin Polytech, as posted by Deborah E Leech
<dleech@mail.coin.missouri.edu> on the SANET list)
- Surveyors warned yesterday that farmers who plant GM crops
could see their land values fall, and that tenants of such land
might face bills to make up the shortfall. The Royal Institute of
Chartered Surveyors (RICS) called for the creation of a land
register through which potential buyers, and banks, could find
out if and when GM crops had been planted or grown on a
particular holding. However, the RICS report, sent to the
Government's Office of Science and Technology and other
departments, warned that growing such crops might lower the value
of the land. In the case of tenant farmers, a landlord could, in
effect, sue for any shortfall in land value caused by the tenant
growing GM crops. (INDEPENDENT, London, 12 Mar 1999)
-- Farmers growing GE crops have to sign binding contracts
with the biotechnology producers. These commit them to using
only the herbicides produced by that company and prohibit them
from the traditional practice of saving seed for the next season.
(See: "13 Myths about Genetic Engineering", Consumers for
Education about Genetic Engineering, Dunedin Polytech, as posted
by Deborah E Leech <dleech@mail.coin.missouri.edu> on the SANET
list)
-- HT: The integration of the seed and chemical industries
appears destined to accelerate increases in per acre expenditures
for seeds plus chemicals, delivering significantly lower returns
to growers. Companies developing herbicide tolerant crops are
trying to shift as much per acre cost as possible from the
herbicide onto the seed via seed costs and/or technology charges.
Increasingly price reductions for herbicides will be limited to
growers purchasing technology packages. In Illinois, the adoption
of herbicide resistant crops makes for the most expensive soybean
seed-plus-weed management system in modern history -between
$40.00 and $60.00 per acre depending on rates, weed pressure,
etc. Three years ago, the average seed-plus-weed control costs on
Illinois farms was $26 per acre, and represented 23% of variable
costs; today they represent 35-40% (Benbrook l999). (Benbrook, C.
l999 World food system challenges and opportunities: GMOs,
biodiversity and lessons from America's heartland (unpub.
manuscript). As cited in: "Ten reasons why biotechnology will not
ensure food security, protect the environment and reduce poverty
in the developing world"; Miguel A. Altieri, UC Berkeley and
Peter Rosset, Institute for Food and Development Policy, Oakland,
CA) Many farmers are willing to pay for the simplicity and
robustness of the new weed management system, but such advantages
may be short-lived as ecological problems arise.
- Because consumers don't want GE-food, GE crops fetch a
lower price in the market; some markets will even reject them.
Non-GE crops now receive a premium and as more countries reject
GE foods, the opportunities to sell GE produce overseas are
diminishing.
4.3. CLAIM: CONSUMERS WANT GE-FOODS
-- Opinion polls consistently show that more than 90% of
Americans support the labeling of GE foods. A 1999 Time poll
revealed that close to 60% would avoid such foods if they were
labeled. (NYTimes full page ad, 18 Oct 1999)
- "Ag Biotech: Thanks, But No Thanks?" - that was the title
of a July 1999 report of investment analysts Frank Mitsch and
Jennifer Mitchell of the Deutsche Banc Alex. Brown, the largest
investment firm in the world. The two said they were "willing to
believe that GMO crops are safe," but they warned that the "no
thanks" attitude "appears to be in the lead in Europe and could
easily become the thought process in the United States as well."
Earlier, three analysts from the same company had sent investors
a report entitled "GMOs Are Dead," advising them to sell their
Pioneer Hi-Bred stocks.
<http://www.dmg.com/central/ver40/index.html>
<http://www.biotech-info.net/Deutsche.html>
- In Britain, for example, where GE food labeling is
required, poll results last March [1999] showed that nine out of
10 shoppers would switch supermarkets and travel considerable
distances to avoid such food. (See: "Wake-up call for biotech
foods", Wisconsin State Journal, 22 Apr 1999)
- Some 86% of consumers questioned in a poll for Here's
Health magazine said they would switch to a different supermarket
if it banned all GE products. On top of this, 84% of the same
sample of 1,030 shoppers said they would be willing to travel
double the distance it normally takes to visit their supermarket
if they could be sure of shopping in a GM-free environment. (The
Press Association, 10 Mar 1999)
- More than 100 chefs and food writers launched a campaign
to oppose "freakish" GM food yesterday. Antonio Carluccio, Antony
Worrall Thompson, Fay Maschler and Annie Bell, food writer for
The Independent, were among those who pledged to secure a ban on
the release of all GM organisms into the food chain. In a joint
statement, they said: "As food professionals we object to the
introduction of [GM] foods into the food chain. This is imposing
a genetic experiment on the public, which could have
unpredictable and irreversible adverse consequences. " In a
recent Mori poll, 61 per cent of respondents said they would not
be happy to eat GM food. (INDEPENDENT, London, 27 Jan 1999)
-- Washington, D.C.: Citing major deficiencies in the
government's regulatory system, a coalition of environmentalists
and scientists issued a document today calling for the suspension
of all further releases of GMOs. The Pacific Declaration was
first drafted at a national meeting on July 26-28, 1999 at the
Commonweal Conference Center in Bolinas, California. The
Declaration cites the failure of governmental agencies to review
the long-term prospects for environmental and human harm stemming
from GMOs. Among the groups endorsing the Declaration are the
Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, the American Corn Growers
Association, Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI),
the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, the Council for
Responsible Genetics, the Edmonds Institute, and the Center for
Ethics and Toxics (CETOS). (CETOS press statement, 12 Oct 1999)
- SEOUL, Sept 9 (Reuters) - The Korea Consumer Protection
Board said last Thursday its survey had found that 94.7 percent
of the total 526 survey respondents said labelling for GM foods
was necessary - 71.5 percent said all the time and 23.2 percent
in some cases. (Reuters, 9 Sep 1999)
-- The ff U.S. organizations have asked for the suspension
of all further releases of GMOs: Sierra Club, Friends of the
Earth, the American Corn Growers Association, Rural Advancement
Foundation International (RAFI), the Institute for Agriculture
and Trade Policy, the Council for Responsible Genetics, the
Edmonds Institute, and the Center for Ethics and Toxics (CETOS).
(CETOS press release, 12 Oct 1999)
-- Australian farmers reject GE: "That the Federation oppose
the release of 'Genetic Modification' of both livestock and other
farm produce and that we continue to promote R&D of those
products by natural means." (Western Australian Farmers
Federation, Rural Press Report, 15 Sep 1999)
-- California Labeling Initiative: California volunteers are
gathering signatures to put an initiative on the ballot that
would require GE foods labeling. The initiative would require
labeling of "crops and livestock containing genetic material
transferred from one species to another or other DNA
modifications not commonly possible under natural conditions,
such as cell fusion, gene deletion or doubling, and induced
sequence or encapsulation variations." To qualify for the Nov
2000 ballot, 413,000 valid California voter signatures are needed
by February 20. If such initiative passes, implications for the
rest of the country are huge. Food firms which are not GE-free
would need to add labels if they wanted to do business in our
most populated state. Legislation on GE foods is also being
considered in New York, Vermont and Minnesota in the next year.
(Organic View, Vol. 1 No. 18, 8 Dec 1999)
-- U.S.: More than 30 farm groups in the U.S., representing
tens of thousands of farmers, have warned their members they are
risking their livelihoods if they plant GE crops, because these
had become so unpopular with consumers. "Export markets in Europe
and Asia are saying 'no' to foods produced from GM crops and
farmers know they have to respond to consumer demand if they are
to survive," Gary Goldberg, head of the American Corn Growers
Assoc., said. He predicted that 25% fewer GM crops would be
planted next year in US fields, based on talks with farmers and
local seed company salesmen. "We believe that farmers in mass
exodus are moving away from planting GM crops next year," he
said. The farmers' main concern is that growing consumer demand
for traditional seed varieties will create a two-tier market in
which GM products will fall in price. Farmers have said they are
concerned about paying premium prices for GM seeds and then
finding they can't sell their crops. Grain dealer Jerry Bertrand
said: "I can't tell them with certainty that I'll take their GM
corn and soya next year because I don't know if there'll be a
market for it." The farm groups also warned that inadequate
testing of GM seeds could make farmers vulnerable to massive
lawsuits if the seeds were later found to have negative
environmental effects. Some European countries have banned
American maize and soya shipments because US authorities cannot
guarantee they only contain EU-approved varieties. The US says
this has cost it approximately $200m in maize sales alone over
the past two years, and will raise the issue with the WTO. (24
Nov 1999)
4.4. CLAIM: COMPANIES ARE SHIFTING TO GE-FOODS
- With more and more major food retailers, restaurants, and
processors in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, France, Scandinavia,
the UK, and other nations going "GE-free" a tremendous market now
exists for certified "non-GE" and organic products.
-- GM-free feed cannot meet rising demand: Not enough non-GM
soya or derived products are available on the international
market to met growing demand for GM-free animal feed, according
to [National Farmers Union]'s Dr Vernon Barber. (See The Farmer's
Guardian, 15 Oct 1999, UK)
- AUSTRALIA: Australian trade authorities announced Jan. 8,
1999, the largest shipment of canola (rapeseed) ever exported
from Australia. The $16.5 million dollar shipment is bound for
oilseed crushing plants in Europe. According to Graham Lawrence,
managing director of the New South Wales Grains Board, "Europe
has moved to become a major buyer this year because Australia is
the only country to guarantee non-GM canola."
-- Canada has lost $300-400 million in canola sales to
Europe IN 1998 because authorities have followed the US model of
co-mingling GE and non-GE grains. This year over 50% of Canada's
13.4 million acres of canola are GE.
-- CANADA: The Canada press have noted continuing indecision
among rapeseed (canola oil) farmers whether to plant GE rapeseed
in the next growing season. Over one-half of Canada's canola crop
this year is GE. Canada has lost almost a billion dollars in
canola sales to Europe since the GE controversy erupted in 1997.
If Japan (which is likely) and China cut back on canola
purchases, Canada's rapeseed farmers will be facing economic
disaster. (Organic View, Vol. 1 No. 18, 8 Dec 1999)
-- U.S.: There have been virtually no corn exports from the
US to the EU States because the GE corn cannot be separated from
the rest of the crop, costing American farmers about $200 million
a year. (Marian Burros, Reuters News Service, 14 Jul 1999)
-- BRAZIL: Almost no US corn (nor Canadian canola oil) has
being exported to the EU for the past two years because of
consumer resistance. Meanwhile Brazil, where a GE ban is in
effect, is exporting record-breaking amounts of soya to the EU;
while Australia is exporting increasing amounts of non-GE canola
to Japan. (See: Cummins, Ronnie and Ben Lilliston, Campaign for
Food Safety News #22, 21 Oct 1999) <http://www.purefood.org;
http://www.organicconsumers.org>
- U.S.: The National Corn Growers Association acknowledges
that U.S. corn sales to Europe plunged from nearly 70 million
bushels in 1997 to less than 3 million last year because the U.S.
crop contained a small amount of GE corn. (See: "Wake-up call for
biotech foods", Wisconsin State Journal, 22 Apr 1999)
-- Last fall, testers in Europe detected traces of GE corn
in organic corn chips made by elodi Nelson's company, Prima Terra
Inc. of Hudson, Wis. Some of the corn supplied to Prima Terra
from a certified organic supplier was contaminated, it turned
out, with minuscule amounts of GE corn, perhaps because a few
grains of GE pollen blew into the organic grower's fields from a
neighboring farm. The positive test forced Prima Terra to recall
87,000 bags of chips valued at $147,000. (Rick Weiss, Washington
Post, 15 August 1999)
-- Carlsberg to Avoid GM corn: Carlsberg AS said it will
henceforth brew its beer only from malt and no longer use corn to
reassure consumers of a GM-free product. (AFP, 12 Nov 1999)
-- The maker of Gerber baby food is dropping suppliers who
use GE corn and soybean products, the company's CEO confirmed
today. The move by Novartis follows a request from Greenpeace for
information on the company's use of GE products. The company was
evaluating their use before then, said Al Piergallini, president
and CEO of its North American consumer health division, based in
Summit. Novartis plans to drop some of the company's grain
suppliers this summer in favor of producers who use non-GE corn
and soybeans. Those ingredients account for less than 2 percent
of Gerber's products, mainly dry cereal, Piergallini said.
Novartis said it was turning to other suppliers anyway, and is
taking its changes a step further by adding a new promise to try
to use only organic - pesticide- and herbicide-free - ingredients
in Gerber products. Two other baby-food makers, H.J. Heinz Co. of
Pittsburgh and Poway, Calif.-based Healthy Time Natural Foods,
have made similar product changes in response to Greenpeace
concerns. Gerber is the nation's largest maker of baby food,
producing 5.5 million jars per day and annual worldwide sales of
$1 billion. (AP Online, 30 Jul 1999)
-- Dow Jones reported on October 5 that the Japanese futures
market (where buyers pay in advance for future deliveries) for US
soybeans which were harvested last year are "declining rapidly"
because last year's soybeans "are mixed with large amounts of GM
products." According to Dow Jones, "Japanese [grain] traders are
rapidly switching to imports of GM-free soybeans." With giant
importers in the EU, Japan, and other nations now demanding
GE-free foods, more large transnational grain traders are
expected to follow the example of Archer Daniels Midland, who
announced in September they expect US farmers and grain elevators
to start separating out and segregating GE from non-GE grains.
Archer Daniels Midland purchases fully 1/3 of all corn, soybeans,
and wheat produced in the US. (See: Cummins, Ronnie and Ben
Lilliston, Campaign for Food Safety News #22, 21 Oct 1999)
<http://www.purefood.org; http://www.organicconsumers.org>
-- Europe's biggest bank has advised the world's largest
investors to sell their shares in leading GMO makers because
consumers do not want to buy their products. In a report sent to
several thousand of the world's large institutional investors,
including British pension funds, Deutsche Bank says that "growing
negative sentiment" is creating problems for the leading
companies, including Monsanto and Novartis. "More broadly
speaking, it appears the food companies, retailers, grain
processors, and governments are sending a signal to the seed
producers that 'we are not ready for GMOs'." Since the report was
circulated to investors, shares in companies named have fallen
against a rising trend in stock markets generally and the frenzy
to takeover seed companies has stopped. In the six months to
yesterday Monsanto's stocks had fallen 11%, and Delta & Pine, a
seed company that owns the terminator gene, which Monsanto is
taking over, has lost 18% of its value. The Deutsche Bank's
Washington analysts, Frank Mitsch and Jennifer Mitchell, say it
is nine months since they first voiced their concerns that the
biotech industry was "going the way of the nuclear industry in
this country, but we count ourselves surprised at how rapidly
this forecast appears to be playing out. Deutsche Bank's first
research report, dated May 21 and entitled GMOs Are Dead, said:
"We predict that GMOs, once perceived as a bull case for this
sector, will now be perceived as a pariah. "The message is a
scary one - increasingly, GMOs are, or in our opinion, becoming a
liability to farmers," it adds. Non-GMO grains were already
gaining a premium price which would, if the trend continued, far
outweigh any economic benefit in growing GMOs. GM grains would
have to be sold at a discount. "Farmers who planted (Monsanto's)
Roundup Ready soya could end up regretting it." It could become
an "earnings nightmare" for Pioneer Hi-Bred (a company due to be
taken over by the chemicals giant DuPont) and for Monsanto which
is buying Delta & Pine, a stock, the bank says, not worth holding
on to. The concerns of European consumers are real, concludes the
report. "European consumers have recently been through the mad
cow crisis, the French Aids-tainted blood crisis, the Dutch pig
plague crisis, the Belgium chicken dioxin crisis, the Belgian
Coca-Cola crisis, etc. Therefore hearing from unsophisticated
Americans that their fears are unfounded may not be the best way
of proceeding." (Paul Brown and John Vidal, GUARDIAN (London), 25
August 1999)
- Monsanto, the beleaguered U.S. biotech firm, is coming
under intense pressure from Wall Street analysts and professional
investors in New York to dismember itself in the wake of the
campaign against GM food. New York's financial community is now
convinced that successful protests from consumers and
environmental groups in Europe have hurt Monsanto's growth
prospects and its stock market rating so badly that the only
option to realise some value for investors would be some kind of
sell-off. (The Guardian, 22 Oct 1999, London)
- The following companies are part of the growing list of
firms which have declared that they will not use GE-ingredients
or sell GE-foods:
-- AUSTRALIA: Vitasoy International Holdings Ltd., Australia
(AFX Asia, 2 Nov 1999); Sanitarium Health Food Company,
Australia; Cadbury-Schweppes, Australia; Master Foods, Australia;
Mars Confectionery, Australia; Wyeth, Australia; Heinz Watties
Australasia
-- CANADA: McCain Foods, Canada's French-fries giant (Ottawa
Citizen, 29 Nov 1999);
-- Canadian anti-biotech campaigners - Greenpeace, the
Council of Canadians, and the Sierra Club - won a major victory
in late-November (1999) when New Brunswick-based McCain Foods,
the largest potato and frozen french fry processor in the world,
announced they would no longer accept Monsanto's Bt potatoes for
their brand-name products. McCain's chairman, Harrison McCain,
was cited by the Ottawa Citizen newspaper Nov. 29 as saying the
decision was made after "months of pressure" from consumers who
fear GE crops could damage the environment and human health. The
McCain decision comes in the wake of a recent highly-publicized
petition by 200 scientists from Health Canada, the government
health department, to Allan Rock, the Health Minister, saying
they lacked sufficient staff and resources to examine potential
health risks of GE foods.
- FRANCE: Carrefour (France's largest supermarket chain);
-- ITALY: Esselunga;
-- JAPAN: Nissin Food Products; Kirin Brewery; Itochu Corp,
Japanese trading house; Itochu Feed Mills; Sapporo Breweries;
Nippon Flour Mills; Fuji Oil Co.; Japan Tofu Association;
-- Major food and beverage companies in Japan have begun
removing GE soybean and corn ingredients in their products. Kirin
Brewery, Sapporo Breweries, Itochu Feed Mills, Nippon Flour
Mills, Nissin, Fuji Oil Co., and the Japan Tofu Association,
among others have decided to either ban GE ingredients completely
or put a major marketing effort into sourcing and selling GE-free
products. A division of Honda Motor Company announced they were
building a soy-handling plant in Ohio to supply the sharply
rising demand for non-GE soybeans in Japan. Interpress on Oct. 14
reported a similar move by Pioneer-Hybrid Japan, who announced a
major business venture to import non-GE soybeans from the US. In
the same article Interpress called attention to a 1999 poll in
Tokyo where "90% of those surveyed expressed deep concern over
the growing trend toward biotechnology." Japan is the largest
importer of food products and animal feeds in the world. (See:
Cummins, Ronnie and Ben Lilliston, Campaign for Food Safety News
#22, 21 Oct 1999) <http://www.purefood.org;
http://www.organicconsumers.org>
- MEXICO: Grupo Maseca, Mexico's leading producer of corn
flour;
-- SWITZERLAND: Migros;
- UK: Unilever, the world's largest food manufacturer (See:
Independent, 28 Apr 1999); Tesco (Britains biggest supermarket
chain, sales: #18.5bn) (See: Observer, 7 Mar 1999); Asda, a major
British supermarket chain (See: Independent, 27 Jan 1999);
Kentucky Fried Chicken UK (See: Daily Mail, 23 Feb 1999);
Iceland, a British frozen food specialist; Marks and Spencer,
another British retail chain; Waitrose, UK; McDonald's, UK (See:
Observer, 7 Mar 1999); Burger King, UK (See: Daily Mail, 23 Feb
1999); United Biscuits, UK (See: Observer, 7 Mar 1999);
Sainsbury, UK;
- U.S.: Gerber Baby Foods; Heinz; Burger King;
-- GM food has been banned from the staff cafeteria at
Monsanto Co.'s UK headquarters by the company's own caterer,
Monsanto confirmed Tuesday. Granada Food Services, whose
customers include Monsanto's High Wycombe office near London,
recently told clients it would not supply food containing GM soya
or maize due to customer concerns. Granada said the move was
designed "to ensure that you, the customer, can feel confident in
the food we serve."
http://www.infobeat.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=2562764499-062
-- Caterers at the House of Commons serve food that avoids
GM ingredients "in response to the general unease about such
foods expressed by significant numbers of our customers". At the
Welsh and Scottish Assemblies, caterers also have a policy of
avoiding GM ingredients, and the European Parliament has banned
them too. (Alex Kirby, BBC Online, 22 Dec 1999)
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_574000/574245.stm>
4.5. CLAIM: COUNTRIES ARE RAPIDLY ADOPTING GE-CROPS
-- AUSTRALIA: Australia's $14 billion farm export sector is
shunning GE crops due to fears of "consumer backlash." Despite
heavy biotech industry lobbying, the country has not allowed the
commercialization of many GE products, including sugar cane,
beer, and canola. The only GE crop grown on a large-scale in
Australia is cotton. (Reuters, 15 Oct 1999)
- AUSTRIA: A total ban on Bt corn, including field trials,
has been imposed
-- BRAZIL: It grows 25% of the world's soybeans. Its Supreme
Court ruled in June that Monsanto's GE soybeans (RRS) cannot be
grown until the govt finalizes stringent regulations on biosafety
and Monsanto completes an environmental impact statement. Farm
and environment groups have made GE a major national issue.
Monsanto reps admitted late-September that no RRS soybeans will
be planted in 1999-2000 and that prospects for 2000-2001 planting
are also in jeopardy. Analysts believe that if Brazil's ban
continues for several more years (and sales to the EU of non-GE
soya continue to grow), GE crops may never gain significance in
the country. (See: Cummins, Ronnie and Ben Lilliston, Campaign
for Food Safety News #22, 21 Oct 1999) <http://www.purefood.org;
http://www.organicconsumers.org>
-- Brazil's state of Rio Grande do Sul will launch what may
be the world's first program aimed at weeding out GM crops, a
state official said Tuesday. Treating GM soybeans like drug
plants, the state will offer farmers a total of 10 million reals
(US$5.37 million) in special low-interest loans if they rip out
GM soy - illegal in Brazil - and replant normal varieties. "What
we are telling them it is better to lose seedlings than lose
their entire crop," said the state's agriculture secretary, Jose
Hermeto Hoffmann. (Phil Stewart, Reuters, 7 Dec 1999)
-- EUROPE: Public opposition to GE foods is so strong that
the European Union requires the labeling of all newly
manufactured GE products from the U.S. The approval of new GE
crops in the EU has ground to a halt. No new varieties have been
approved in the last 15 months. (Marian Burros, Reuters News
Service, 14 Jul 1999)
-- INDIA: India's Supreme Court ruled on Feb. 23 to halt all
field trials of Monsanto's Bt Cotton. The court said that no
field trials can be permitted on a large scale unless the rules
and guidelines are amended ensuring protection of the
environment, biodiversity and human health. The court ruling was
a response to the petition of Dr Vandana Shiva of the Research
Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology, which also calls
for a 3-5 year moratorium on field releases. (See: Environmental
News Service, February 23, 1999)
-- INDONESIA, PAKISTAN: Officials recently announced plans
for more stringent safety-testing of GE imports. crops and
imports. (See: Cummins, Ronnie and Ben Lilliston, Campaign for
Food Safety News #22, 21 Oct 1999)
-- ITALY: Farm Minister Paolo De Castro on Friday blocked 3
GM crops - maize, soya and chicory - that had completed testing
and were ready to proceed to field planting... For the moment, De
Castro has also halted all new GM testing programs. He said he
wanted responsibility for the schemes to be shared by regional
governments before giving the go-ahead. (Xinhua, 5 Nov 1999)
-- ITALY: The govt has temporarily suspended the use of 7 GM
food products, a Health Ministry statement said Friday.
"Following opinions from the Italian Health Institute and the
Health Council, the Health Ministry will take a precautionary
step, in conformity with EU regulations, to suspend temporarily
the use of the substances," it said. The Health Council said the
7 GM products are maize Bt11, maize Mon 810, rapeseed oil Gt73,
rapeseed oil MS1 RS1, rapeseed oil RF2 MS1, maize Mon 809 and
maize T25. The ministry statement said the suspension followed
complaints by environmental groups over allegedly irregular sales
procedure, but the ministry gave no details and did not say how
long the suspension could last. The Health Council said it was
not possible to guarantee that genetic alteration of foods was
safe. (Reuters World Report, 17 Dec 1999)
- NORWAY, DENMARK: The governments have banned the
commercialization of GM organisms and food
-- PARAGUAY: Its Biosafety Commission, supported by many
NGOs, called on August 4 for GE-free production in Paraguay.
(See: Cummins, Ronnie and Ben Lilliston, Campaign for Food Safety
News #22, 21 Oct 1999) <http://www.purefood.org;
http://www.organicconsumers.org>
-- RUSSIA: The sale to the population of foodstuffs and
medicinal preparations, obtained from GM sources, without special
marking on the package will be banned, starting from July 1,
2000. (TASS, 5 Oct 1999)
-- THAILAND: They will set up GMO-free agricultural zones to
promote exports, a senior Thai official said. 'Agricultural
products from GMO-free zones exported to foreign markets will be
guaranteed by Thai authorities as GMO-free,' said Newin Chidchob,
deputy agriculture minister... 'We have no policy of allowing
trading in modified food in Thailand. GMO plants are banned from
import, except for study and research, and we never produce and
export such food,' Newin said. In certain areas, the govt will
control the whole process of production from seed to harvest, he
said, noting the zone will be expanded until the entire nation is
GMO-free. (Kyodo, 27 Sep 1999)
-- THAILAND: The govt announced Oct. 18 it will ban imported
GE seeds "pending clear scientific proof that they are safe."
Fears reached new levels last week when a shipment of GE wheat
from the U.S. mysteriously arrived in Thailand. EU warned that
Thai rice may be rejected if shipments are found contaminated
with GE rice being grown in Thailand. (AP, 18 Oct 1999)
-- US soybean exports to Europe have declined from $2.1
billion in 1996 to $1.1 billion in 1999, and will likely decline
to zero over the next 12 months as Greenpeace, Friends of the
Earth, and other anti-biotech campaigners drive GE soy and
corn-derived animal feeds off the market. As the same thing
happens in Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and the rest of Asia--not to
mention the US and Canada--GE grains, for all practical purposes,
will be dead. Meanwhile exports of GE-free soybeans from Brazil
to Europe are booming, with sales rising from 3.1 million tons to
5.4 million tons over the past year. (Organic View, Vol. 1 No.
18, 8 Dec 1999)
4.10. OTHERS
5. LEGAL CLAIMS: THE GE INDUSTRY IS STRICTLY REGULATED BY GOVERNMENTS
- Summary: The collusion of corporations who are in a hurry
to recover their investments in GE research and governments which
are heavily targetted by corporate lobbyists is forcing GE crops
on farmers and GE foods on consumers.
-- Lord Sainsbury, the UK Minister of Science, and member of
the Supermarket chain family, was revealed to have had
confidential discussions with Monsanto representatives at key
points over the last months. Sainsbury was further shown to have
strong personal business interests in the genetic engineering
food industry. He is a shareholder and investor in GE companies.
His own company, Diatech, is the patent holder of the cauliflower
mosaic promoter, which is believed to be at the centre of the
Pusztai/Rowett Institute controversy. Environmental groups have
called for his resignation. (See: Guardian UK, 16 Feb 1999)
5.1. CLAIM: THE U.S. HAS THE STRICTEST FOOD REGULATIONS IN THE WORLD
+ The U.S. FDA has determined that GE crops are as safe as
their conventional counterparts. The U.S. has one of the most
stringent food regulatory regimes in the world.
- In February 1999, the Center for Food Safety sued the FDA
to have all GE foods taken off the market on the grounds that
they are neither properly labelled nor safety-tested, and that
lack of mandatory labeling illegally restricts the freedom of
choice of those who would choose - on religious or ethical
grounds - to avoid GE foods. (http://www.icta.org)
-- In May 1998, a coalition of public interest groups,
scientists, and religious leaders filed a landmark lawsuit
against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to obtain mandatory
safety testing and labeling of all GE foods (Alliance for
Bio-Integrity, et. al. v. Shalala). Nine eminent life scientists
joined the coalition in order to emphasize the degree to which
they think FDA policy is scientifically unsound and morally
irresponsible. Now, the FDA's own files confirm how well-founded
are their concerns. The FDA was required to deliver copies of
these files--totaling over 44,000 pages--to the plaintiffs'
attorneys. The FDA's records reveal it declared GE foods to be
safe in the face of disagreement from its own experts--all the
while claiming a broad scientific consensus supported its stance.
Internal reports and memoranda disclose: (1) agency scientists
repeatedly cautioned that foods produced through recombinant DNA
technology entail different risks than do their conventionally
produced counterparts and (2) that this input was consistently
disregarded by the bureaucrats who crafted the agency's current
policy, which treats GE foods the same as natural ones. Besides
contradicting the FDA's claim that its policy is science-based,
this evidence shows the agency violated the U.S. Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act in allowing GE foods to be marketed without testing
on the premise that they are generally recognized as safe by
qualified experts. The FDA admits it is operating under a
directive "to foster" the U.S. biotech industry; and this
directive advocates the premise that GE foods are essentially the
same as others. However, the agency's attempts to bend its policy
to conform with this premise met strong resistance from its own
scientists, who repeatedly warned that genetic engineering
differs from conventional practices and entails a unique set of
risks. Numerous agency experts protested that drafts of the
Statement of Policy were ignoring the recognized potential for
bioengineering to produce unexpected toxins and allergens in a
different manner and to a different degree than do conventional
methods. Besides violating basic canons of ethics, the FDA's
behavior flagrantly violates the U.S. Food, Drug and Cosmetic
Act, which mandates that new food additives be established safe
through testing prior to marketing. While the FDA admits that GE
organisms fall under this provision, it claims they are exempt
from testing because they are "generally recognized as safe"
(GRAS), even though it knows they are not recognized as safe even
by its own scientists let alone by a consensus in the scientific
community. (Steven M. Druker, J.D., executive director of the
Alliance for Bio-Integrity, coordinator of the lawsuit against
the FDA to obtain mandatory safety testing and labeling of GE
foods)
- The FDA's records reveal it declared GE foods to be safe
in the face of disagreement from its own experts - all the while
claiming a broad scientific consensus supported its stance.
Internal reports and memoranda disclose that: 1) FDA scientists
repeatedly cautioned that foods produced through recombinant DNA
technology entail different risks than do their conventionally
produced counterparts; and 2) this input was consistently
disregarded by the bureaucrats who crafted FDA's policy, to treat
GE-foods the same as natural ones. (See: Statement by Steven M.
Druker, J.D., executive director of the Alliance for
Bio-Integrity, lawsuit coordinator, in collaboration with the
Legal Department of the Center for Technology Assessment in
Washington, D.C.).
- FDA's own scientists repeatedly warned that genetic
engineering differs from conventional practices and entails a
unique set of risks. Numerous FDA experts protested that drafts
of the Statement of Policy were ignoring the recognized potential
for bioengineering to produce unexpected toxins and allergens in
a different manner and to a different degree than do conventional
methods.
- Dr. Louis Priybl (FDA Microbiology Group): "There is a
profound difference between the types of unexpected effects from
traditional breeding and genetic engineering which is just
glanced over in this document." He added that several aspects of
gene splicing "...may be more hazardous." (Steven M. Druker,
J.D., executive director of the Alliance for Bio-Integrity,
coordinator of the lawsuit against the FDA to obtain mandatory
safety testing and labeling of GE foods)
- Dr. Linda Kahl (FDA compliance officer): The FDA was
"...trying to fit a square peg into a round hole ... [by] trying
to force an ultimate conclusion that there is no difference
between foods modified by genetic engineering and foods modified
by traditional breeding practices." She said: "The processes of
genetic engineering and traditional breeding are different, and
according to the technical experts in the agency, they lead to
different risks." (Steven M. Druker, J.D., executive director of
the Alliance for Bio-Integrity, coordinator of the lawsuit
against the FDA to obtain mandatory safety testing and labeling
of GE foods)
- Dr. Jim Maryanski (FDA Biotechnology Coordinator)
acknowledged there is no consensus about the safety of GE foods
in the scientific community at large, and FDA scientists advised
they should undergo special testing, including toxicological
tests. (Steven M. Druker, J.D., executive director of the
Alliance for Bio-Integrity, coordinator of the lawsuit against
the FDA to obtain mandatory safety testing and labeling of GE
foods)
+ Trust the scientists who have assured us that GE food is
safe.
- The money for scientific research on GE comes from either
the biotechnology companies or the government. Both are committed
to the promises of biotechnology. This means that even when
scientists have concerns about the safety or commercial
application of the technology, it is often hard for them to risk
their careers by being openly critical. (See: "13 Myths about
Genetic Engineering", Consumers for Education about Genetic
Engineering, Dunedin Polytech, as posted by
<dleech@mail.coin.missouri.edu> on the SANET list)
- A "revolving door" exists between the biotech industry and
U.S. regulatory bodies, seriously compromising the U.S.
regulatory process. Many other countries rely on the U.S.
process, so their approvals for GE field-testing or
commercialization have been compromised too.
- Monsanto's top dairy scientists Margaret Miller and
Suzanne Sechen, were hired by the US FDA to review Monsanto's
research in the process of approving rBGH.
- Monsanto's lawyer Michael Taylor was hired by the US FDA
to write the labelling laws governing rBGH.
- Suzanne Wuerthele (BS in Biology, MA in Teaching Science,
PhD in Pharmacology, 7 years of post-doctoral work,
board-certified toxicologist, worked in a U.S. EPA regional
office for 13 years, a national expert in toxicology and risk
assessment): I was introduced to GE a few years back when I was
shown the "risk assessment" for a GE nitrogen-fixing bacteria,
Rhizobium meliloti... I learned some very disturbing things about
regulation of GE:
o EPA has an official position of "fostering" biotechnology;
o There is no process - across all U.S. federal agencies -
to evaluate the hazards of GE organisms (we have such a
process for chemicals and it works pretty well). For GE,
however, no formal risk assessment methodologies. No
science policies... No conferences where scientific issues
of GE are debated. No understanding of the full range of
hazards from GE organisms. No discussion of or
consultation with the public to determine what constitute
"unacceptable risk". No method to even measure magnitude
of risks. Etc.
o When peer review panels are put together, they are not
necessarily unbiased. They can be filled with GE
proponents or confined to questions which avoid the
important issues, so that a predetermined decision can be
justified.
...we are confronted with the most powerful technology the world
has ever known, and it is being rapidly deployed with almost no
thought whatsoever to its consequences. In fact, we don't even
know yet the full extent of what it can do to the environment and
to our health. The few scientists in regulatory agencies who are
concerned are ignored or their concerns are dismissed. Or they
are told to be silent. Good risk assessment and good science,
which if they were used rationally, would tell us that we're
making a big mistake, is not being used or is being twisted.
(Susan Wuerthele, toxicologist)
- David W. Beier, former head of Government Affairs for
Genentech, Inc., now chief domestic policy advisor to Al Gore,
Vice President of the United States.
(http://www.edmonds-institute.org/door.html)
- Linda J. Fisher, former Assistant Administrator of the
United States Environmental Protection Agency's Office of
Pollution Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, now Vice
President of Government and Public Affairs for Monsanto
Corporation. (http://www.edmonds-institute.org/door.html)
- Michael A. Friedman, M.D., former acting commissioner of
the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Department
of Health and Human Services, now senior vice-president for
clinical affairs at G. D. Searle & Co., a pharmaceutical division
of Monsanto Corporation.
(http://www.edmonds-institute.org/door.html)
- L. Val Giddings, former biotechnology regulator and
(biosafety) negotiator at the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA/APHIS), now Vice President for Food &
Agriculture of the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO).
(http://www.edmonds-institute.org/door.html)
- Marcia Hale, former assistant to the President of the
United States and director for intergovernmental affairs, now
Director of International Government Affairs for Monsanto
Corporation. (http://www.edmonds-institute.org/door.html)
- Michael (Mickey) Kantor, former Secretary of the United
States Department of Commerce and former Trade Representative of
the United States, now member of the board of directors of
Monsanto Corporation.
(http://www.edmonds-institute.org/door.html)
- Josh King, former director of production for White House
events, now director of global communication in the Washington,
D.C. office of Monsanto Corporation.
(http://www.edmonds-institute.org/door.html)
- Terry Medley, former administrator of the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States Department
of Agriculture, former chair and vice-chair of the United States
Department of Agriculture Biotechnology Council, former member of
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) food advisory
committee, and now Director of Regulatory and External Affairs of
Dupont Corporation's Agricultural Enterprise.
(http://www.edmonds-institute.org/door.html)
- Margaret Miller, former chemical laboratory supervisor for
Monsanto, now Deputy Director of Human Food Safety and
Consultative Services, New Animal Drug Evaluation Office, Center
for Veterinary Medicine in the United States Food and Drug
Administration (FDA).
(http://www.edmonds-institute.org/door.html)
- Michael Phillips, recently with the National Academy of
Science Board on Agriculture, now head of regulatory affairs for
the Biotechnology Industry Organization.
(http://www.edmonds-institute.org/door.html)
- William D. Ruckelshaus, former chief administrator of the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA),,now (and
for the past 12 years) a member of the board of directors of
Monsanto Corporation.
(http://www.edmonds-institute.org/door.html)
- Michael Taylor, former legal advisor to the United States
Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s Bureau of Medical Devices
and Bureau of Foods, later executive assistant to the
Commissioner of the FDA, still later a partner at the law firm of
King & Spaulding where he supervised a nine-lawyer group whose
clients included Monsanto Agricultural Company, still later
Deputy Commissioner for Policy at the United States Food and Drug
Administration, and later with the law firm of King & Spaulding.,
now head of the Washington, D.C. office of Monsanto Corporation.*
(http://www.edmonds-institute.org/door.html)
- Lidia Watrud, former microbial biotechnology researcher at
Monsanto Corporation in St. Louis, Missouri, now with the United
States Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Effects
Laboratory, Western Ecology Division.
(http://www.edmonds-institute.org/door.html)
- Jack Watson, former chief of staff to U.S. President Jimmy
Carter, now a staff lawyer with Monsanto Corporation in
Washington, D.C. (http://www.edmonds-institute.org/door.html)
- Clayton K. Yeutter, former Secretary of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, former U.S. Trade Representative (who
led the U.S. team in negotiating the U.S. Canada Free Trade
Agreement and helped launch the Uruguay Round of the GATT
negotiations), now a member of the board of directors of Mycogen
Corporation, whose majority owner is Dow AgroSciences, a wholly
owned subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Company.
(http://www.edmonds-institute.org/door.html)
- Larry Zeph, former biologist in the Office of Prevention,
Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, now Regulatory Science Manager at Pioneer Hi-Bred
International. (http://www.edmonds-institute.org/door.html)
5.2 CLAIM: BIOTECH FIRMS FOLLOW THE REGULATIONS STRICTLY
- Monsanto has been condemned for making 'wrong, unproven,
misleading and confusing' claims in a #1m advertising campaign.
The Advertising Standards Authority, the industry's official
watchdog, criticised the firm for wrongly giving the impression
that GE potatoes and tomatoes had been tested and approved for
sale in Britain. ASA also dismissed Monsanto's assertion that GM
crops were grown 'in a more environmentally sustainable way' than
ordinary crops as unproven. (John Arlidge, Observer (London), 28
Feb 1999)
- Almost 200 cotton farmers in Georgia, Florida, and North
Carolina are suing Monsanto for damages after crop failures of
Monsanto's Bt and Roundup Ready cotton seeds. In a separate
lawsuit 25 cotton farmers in Texas, Oklahoma, Mississippi, and
Louisiana are suing Monsanto for fraud and misrepresentation -
also in regard to Bt cotton crop failures. (See: Augusta
Chronicle, Georgia, 25 Jan 1999)
- Biotech giant Monsanto exported Canadian GE potatoes to
Ukraine, ignoring the domestic laws which require environmental
impact assessment, according to a Greenpeace report published
today... Monsanto NewLeaf potatoes were exported to Ukraine in
1997 and 1998 with the help of Solanum-PEI, a joint venture
company created by Monsanto and the government of PEI. (See:
Canada Newswire, 17 Sep 1999)
-- Monsanto was fined #17,000 by magistrates in Lincolnshire
for failing to maintain a 6-metre pollen boundary around a field
trial of GE oilseed rape. The crops were all destroyed. Although
Monsanto pleaded guilty, the company said that the mistake was
entirely the responsibility of contractors. The seed producers
for the trial, Perryfield Holdings, were fined #14,000 and
ordered to pay #5,000 costs in a prosecution by the Health and
Safety Inspectorate. (Source: The Guardian, February 18 1999)
-- The Senate Agriculture Committee is demanding that new
studies of BST be carried out following allegations that BST
files were stolen at Health Canada, and that scientists
expressing doubts about Monsanto's safety tests have been
pressurized to water down their comments. Health Canada refused
to approve rBST in Canada in January 1999. Controversy has also
erupted following evidence that a scientist representing Canada
on the Jecfa panel was suggested by Monsanto.
-- John Hermann, chair of the Joint Expert Committee on Food
Additives (Jecfa), which reports back to the Codex Commission,
has admitted that an FDA official on the panel passed
confidential EU documents to Monsanto. The official, Dr. Nick
Weber, has been accused by Consumer's International of
professional misconduct and 'breach of trust'. He was, however,
defended by Hermann. It also appears that a former Monsanto rBST
analyst participated in the Jecfa review and helped draft the
Committee's report, although she did not take part in the actual
vote approving rBGH. (Gregory Palast, UK Observer, 14 Mar 1999)
6. MORAL CLAIMS: MORAL IMPERATIVES GUIDE GE TECHNOLOGIES
6.1. CLAIM: GE-CROPS WILL FEED THE WORLD'S HUNGRY
+ GE will make Third World agriculture more productive.
-- Most innovations in agricultural biotechnology have been
profit-driven rather than need-driven. The real thrust of the GE
industry is not to make third world agriculture more productive,
but rather to generate profits (Busch, L., W.B. Lacey, J.
Burkhardt and L. Lacey (1990) Plants, Power and Profit. Basil
Blackwell, Oxford. As cited in: "Ten reasons why biotechnology
will not ensure food security, protect the environment and reduce
poverty in the developing world"; Miguel A. Altieri, UC Berkeley
and Peter Rosset, Institute for Food and Development Policy,
Oakland, CA) This is illustrated by reviewing the principal
technologies on the market today: a) herbicide resistant crops
such as Monsanto's "Roundup Ready"soybeans, seeds that are
tolerant to Monsanto's herbicide Roundup, and b) Bt crops which
are engineered to produce their own insecticide. In the first
instance, the goal is to win a greater herbicide market-share for
a proprietary product and in the second to boost seed sales at
the cost of damaging the usefulness of a key pest management
product (the Bt based microbial insecticide) relied upon by many
farmers, including most organic farmers, as a powerful
alternative to insecticides.
- These technologies respond to the need of biotechnology
companies to intensify farmers' dependence upon seeds protected
by so-called" intellectual property rights," which conflict
directly with the age-old rights of farmers to reproduce, share
or store seeds. (Hobbelink, H. (1991) Biotechnology and the
future of world agriculture. Zed Books, Ltd., London. p. 159. As
cited in: "Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food
security, protect the environment and reduce poverty in the
developing world"; Miguel A. Altieri, UC Berkeley and Peter
Rosset, Institute for Food and Development Policy, Oakland, CA)
Whenever possible corporations will require farmers to buy
company's brand of inputs and will forbid farmers from keeping or
selling seed. By controlling germplasm from seed to sale, and by
forcing farmers to pay inflated prices for seed-chemical
packages, companies are determined to extract the most profit
from their investment. (Krimsky, S. and R.P. Wrubel (1996)
Agricultural Biotechnology and the Environment: science, policy
and social issues. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. As cited
in: "Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security,
protect the environment and reduce poverty in the developing
world"; Miguel A. Altieri, UC Berkeley and Peter Rosset,
Institute for Food and Development Policy, Oakland, CA)
+ Without GE-crops, we cannot feed the world's rapidly
increasing population.
-- GE crop yields are in general no better than conventional
crops and in some instances are even worse. (See yield discussion
under economic claims.)
-- There is no relationship between the prevalence of hunger
in a given country and its population. For every densely
populated and hungry nation like Bangladesh or Haiti, there is a
sparsely populated and hungry nation like Brazil and Indonesia.
The world today produces more food per inhabitant than ever
before. Enough is available to provide 4.3 pounds every person
everyday: 2.5 pounds of grain, beans and nuts, about a pound of
meat, milk and eggs and another of fruits and vegetables. The
real causes of hunger are poverty, inequality and lack of access.
Too many people are too poor to buy the food that is available
(but often poorly distributed) or lack the land and resources to
grow it themselves (Lappe, Collins and Rosset l998). (Lappe,
F.M., J. Collins and P. Rosset (1998). World Hunger: twelve
myths, p. 270. Grove Press, NY. As cited in: "Ten reasons why
biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the
environment and reduce poverty in the developing world"; Miguel
A. Altieri, UC Berkeley and Peter Rosset, Institute for Food and
Development Policy, Oakland, CA)
+ GE crops will save the world from famine.
- A major cause of famine is the unequal global distribution
of food. Food mountains exist in much of the western world and
food is regularly dumped. Poor people have limited ability to
buy either GE or non-GE food. There is no evidence that GE crops
produce higher yields than conventional crops or that GE products
will be cheaper. (See: "13 Myths about Genetic Engineering",
Consumers for Education about Genetic Engineering, Dunedin
Polytech, as posted by Deborah E Leech
<dleech@mail.coin.missouri.edu> on the SANET list)
- Dr. Geoffrey Clements (physicist and leader of the Natural
Law Party, UK): "Perfectly safe natural alternatives are readily
available, and no one believes the propaganda that GE crops are
essential to help feed the hungry or to secure food stocks for
the future. In fact, if the GE revolution is not halted and if
the balance of Nature continues to be disrupted, we would well
see the worst famines and disease of all time."
- The dramatic effects of rotations and intercropping on
crop health and productivity, as well as of the use of biological
control agents on pest regulation have been confirmed repeatedly
by scientific research. The problem is that research at public
institutions increasingly reflects the interests of private
funders at the expense of public good research such as biological
control, organic production systems and general agroecological
techniques . Civil society must request for more research on
alternatives to biotechnology by universities and other public
organizations (Krimsky and Wrubel l996).
- Much of the needed food can be produced by small farmers
located throughout the world using agroecological technologies
(Uphoff, N and Altieri, M.A. l999 Alternatives to conventional
modern agriculture for meeting world food needs in the next
century. Report of a Bellagio Conference. Cornell International
Institute for Food, Agriculture and Development. Ithaca, NY. As
cited in: "Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food
security, protect the environment and reduce poverty in the
developing world"; Miguel A. Altieri, UC Berkeley and Peter
Rosset, Institute for Food and Development Policy, Oakland, CA)
-- New rural devt approaches and low-input technologies
used by farmers and NGOs around the world are already making a
significant contribution to food security at the household,
national and regional levels in Africa, Asia and Latin America.
(Pretty, J. Regenerating agriculture: Policies and practices for
sustainability and self-relieance. Earthscan., London. As cited
in: "Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security,
protect the environment and reduce poverty in the developing
world"; Miguel A. Altieri, UC Berkeley and Peter Rosset,
Institute for Food and Development Policy, Oakland, CA)
-- Yield increases are being achieved by using approaches
based on agroecological principles that stress diversity,
synergy, recycling and integration; and social processes that
stress community participation and empowerment. (Rosset, P. l999
The multiple functions and benefits of small farm agriculture in
the context of global trade negotiations. Institute for Food and
Development Policy, Food First Policy Brief No.4. As cited in:
"Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security,
protect the environment and reduce poverty in the developing
world"; Miguel A. Altieri, UC Berkeley and Peter Rosset,
Institute for Food and Development Policy, Oakland, CA)
-- When such features are optimized, yield enhancement and
stability of production are achieved, as well as a series of
ecological services such conservation of biodiversity, soil and
water restoration and conservation, improved natural pest
regulation mechanisms, etc. (Altieri, M.A., P.Rosset and L.A.
Thrupp. 1998 . The potential of agroecology to combat hunger in
the developing world. 2020 Brief 55. International Food policy
research Institute. Washington DC. As cited in: "Ten reasons why
biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the
environment and reduce poverty in the developing world"; Miguel
A. Altieri, UC Berkeley and Peter Rosset, Institute for Food and
Development Policy, Oakland, CA)
-- Far from being a solution to the world's hunger problem,
the rapid introduction of GE crops may actually threaten
agriculture and food security. First, widespread adoption of
herbicide-resistant seeds may lead to greater use of chemicals
that kill weeds. Yet, many noncrop plants are used by small
farmers in the third world as supplemental food sources and as
animal feed. In the United States, the Fish and Wildlife Service
has found that Roundup already threatens 74 endangered plant
species. Biological pollution from GE organisms may be another
problem. Monsanto is poised to acquire the rights to a genetic
engineering technique that renders a crop's seeds sterile,
insuring that farmers are dependent on Monsanto for new seed
every year. Farming in the third world could be crippled if these
genes contaminate other local crops that the poor depend on. And
such genes could unintentionally sterilize other plants,
according to a study by Martha Crouch, an associate professor of
biology at Indiana University. Half the world's farmers rely on
their own saved seed for each year's harvest. (Peter Rosset,
"World Hunger: Twelve Myths")
-- The biotech industry's actual main motive is to create
profit windfalls by increasing sales of their pesticides and
dominating the entire food supply. For example, the patent on
Monsanto's herbicide known as "Roundup" will expire soon.
Monsanto has enticed farmers with their experimental GE crops to
absorb and tolerate their chemical pesticides and their other
crops which create their own pesticide internally. Monsanto,
DuPont, and Novartis are also taking direct action to buy out and
bring the world's largest seed companies under their control.
(From: pmligotti@earthlink.net)
++ There are no alternatives to GE crops
-- The alternative to GE is ecological agriculture, with
organic farming at its core. Since 1969, more than 800,000 farms
have disappeared from America's landscape, as large corporate
operations consumed smaller family-owned farms. By 2000, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture predicts that half of all U.S. farm
production will come from only 1 percent of all farms. For those
wanting to preserve the livelihood of the family farm, few
options for survival remain. One of the most viable is organic
and natural farming, most successfully performed on small plots
rather than thousands of acres. It's estimated that organic
products alone will be a $6 billion economy by 2001, with sales
of organic food growing between 20 percent and 25 percent
annually. A Food Marketing Institute study reports that organic
and natural foods are available at approximately 73 percent of
grocery stores and supermarkets. Of shoppers surveyed in FMI's
study, more than 50 percent said they purchase organic or natural
foods at least once a month; 35 percent said they actively seek
out products that are labeled as "organic"; and 63 percent look
for products labeled "natural." Purchase of organic products is
highest among consumers between 18 and 29 (31 percent), with a
heavier concentration of sales in the West (34 percent),
according to the 1998 Fresh Trends Report published by The
Packer. (John Fetto, American Demographics, August 1999)
-- The Rodale Institute of Kutztown, Penn., recently
completed a 15-year study comparing organic farming methods to
conventional methods, published in the November 11, 1998, issue
of the journal Nature. It concluded that yields from organic
farming equal conventional yields after four years. Experts have
shown that using pesticides does not guarantee increased yields.
According to David Pimentel, professor of insect ecology and
agricultural sciences at Cornell University, ``Although
pesticides are generally profitable, their use does not always
decrease crop losses. For example, even with the 10-fold increase
in insecticide use in the United States from 1945 to 1989, total
crop losses from insect damage have nearly doubled from 7% to
13%''. (PRNewswire, 27 August 1999)
- At the 12th (1999) annual Scientific Conference of the
International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements
(IFOAM), more than 600 delegates from over 60 countries voted
unanimously against the use of GMOs in food production and
agriculture. The delegates called on all governments and
regulatory agencies to immediately ban GE in agriculture and food
production since it involves: 1) Negative and irreversible
environmental impacts; 2) Release of organisms which cannot be
recalled; 3) Removal of the right of choice, both for farmers and
consumers; 4) Violation of farmers' fundamental property rights
and endangerment of their economic independence; 5) Practices
which are incompatible with the principles of sustainable
agriculture as defined by IFOAM; 6) Unacceptable threats to human
health. (See: )
-- US sales of organic foods have grown between 20 - 25%
annually for the last 7 years, with overall sales of between $3.5
and $4.2 billion.
6.2 CLAIM: LIFE PATENTS ARE NEEDED TO REWARD INNOVATION
++ Patents on life are necessary to enable biotech firms to
recover their investments in developing GMOs
-- GMO patents will illegalize the age-old farmer practice
of saving and sharing seeds.
-- A year ago, Monsanto sued Percy Schmeiser for illegally
growing Monsanto's special GM canola, called "Roundup Ready." The
68-year-old Percy, who has been farming in Saskatchewan for 40
years, ushered me outside, walked to a hydro line, and showed me
a growth of canary-yellow canola. "This is it," he said, then he
took me to the north side of the building where another shoot of
Roundup Ready GM canola was growing. "All over the place," he
said. "It blows in the wind, cross-pollinates." He pulled off one
of the flowers, popping open a pod of canola, displaying the
freckle-sized, black seeds. "Little plant like this makes a
minimum 4,000 seeds...maybe 10,000 seeds," he said. "Now they're
not saying I stole their seed," Percy said. "Now they're saying
it doesn't matter how the (Monsanto canola) gets into a farmer's
field. Doesn't matter if it's blown onto the field or if it's by
cross-pollination. They say it's their patent and if they find it
on your field they'll take your crop, they'll sue you, they'll
fine you." (Martin O'Malley, CBC News Online, 29 Sep 1999)
-- Edward Zielinski, a Saskatchewan farmer, is being charged
with growing Monsanto GE canola without a licence. Zielinski
claims that he unwittingly received and planted Monsanto canola
from seed he swapped with another farmer in exchange for wheat.
If found guilty, he could be forced to pay $29,000. He would also
face a 3-year on-spot inspection of his fields by Monsanto patent
enforcement and a gagging clause that would prevent him from
disclosing the terms of the agreement. Zielinski's suit comes in
the wake of a legal suit Monsanto has pinned on another
Saskatchewan farmer, Percy Schmeiser, for allegedly growing
Monsanto GE canola without a licence. Schmeiser, whose case comes
before court in early autumn, maintains that the ReadyRoundUp
canola pollinated his fields. (See: Sunday Independent, March 14
1999)
- There is an urgent need to challenge the patent system and
IPR intrinsic to the WTO which not only provide MNCs with the
right to seize and patent genetic resources, but that will also
accelerate the rate at which market forces already encourage
monocultural cropping with genetically uniform GM varieties.
Based on history and ecological theory, it is not difficult to
predict the negative impacts of such environmental simplification
on the health of modern agriculture (Altieri l996). (See: "Ten
reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect
the environment and reduce poverty in the developing world";
Miguel A. Altieri and Peter Rosset, Oct 1999)
- USDA spent $229,000 of US taxpayers' money to create the
new "technology protection system" with Delta and Pine Land
Company. The research was done, according to the inventor himself
(Melvin Oliver), to improve the bottom lines of U.S. firms.
- Monsanto announced in October 1999 that it was dropping
its Terminator seed program, confirming the effectiveness of the
global campaign against the technology sterile GE-seeds.
-- According to RAFI, every major seed and agrochemical firm
is developing its own version of Terminator seeds. Novartis,
AstraZeneca, and Monsanto are among the MNCs who have sterile
seeds in the pipeline, while others like Pioneer Hi-Bred, Rhone
Poulenc, and DuPont have seed technologies that could easily be
turned into Terminators. The patents uncovered by RAFI reveal
that companies are developing "suicide" seeds whose genetic
traits can be turned on and off by an external chemical "inducer"
mixed with the company's patented agrochemicals. In the
not-so-distant future, farmers may be planting seeds that will
develop into productive (but sterile) crops only if sprayed with
a carefully prescribed regimen that includes the company's
proprietary pesticide, fertilizer or herbicide. The latest
version of Monsanto's suicide seeds won't germinate unless
exposed to a special chemical, while AstraZeneca's technologies
outline how to engineer crops to become stunted or otherwise
impaired if not regularly exposed to the company's chemicals.
Ignoring potential impacts on farmers around the world, the seed
and agrochemical industry argues that GE seed sterility is highly
beneficial to the environment because it will eliminate the
problem of horizontal gene transfer - it will prevent
cross-pollination and thus the escape of GE genes from transgenic
plants to nearby weeds or wild relatives. Suicide seeds could
eliminate the possibility of genetic pollution and conveniently
offers a "green" rationale for acceptance of genetic seed
sterility. Industry also argues that they can't continue to
develop new, more productive varieties for agriculture unless
they get a fair return on their investment. A RAFI report
"Traitor Technology" provides an in-depth analysis of the seed
sterility patents. For this study and a detailed chart of patent
claims, visit RAFI's homepage at <http://www.rafi.org/>
6.3. CLAIM: GE TECHNOLOGIES WILL HELP THE INCURABLY SICK
** According to New Scientist, US company GeneWorks of
Michigan state has 50 to 60 GE birds. Some of these birds carry a
gene enabling them to produce human growth factor in eggs, and
others produce a human antibody which could be used to treat
disease. Another US company. AviGenics, has birds which produce a
cancer treating interferon. It says the gene - injected into bird
embryos as a protein contained in a harmless virus - has already
been passed on to further generations of birds, saving on
repeating the process. (New Scientist, 13 Nov 1999)
** Cloning sets of rhesus monkeys could make the technology
suitable for humans. An intense effort to clone a set of monkeys
for medical research is underway in the USA. Tanja Dominko, at
the Oregon Regional Primate Centre said: "We are working really
hard to make it happen in any way we can." She said having cloned
monkeys would allow new drugs and vaccines to be tested on sets
of genetically-identical animals. If successful, cloning
technology will have moved a step nearer to being safely applied
to humans. She admitted it may be a number of years before they
successfully clone the monkeys, despite a narrow failure three
years ago. Two monkeys were born after 166 nuclear transfer
attempts but were not identical as the nuclei came from different
sources. Also, the cells used were taken from embryos, not
adults. At the time, Dominko's colleague, Don Wolf said: "If we
can do this in monkeys, most people will see the significance of
that to humans." Researchers are particularly interested in
primates as laboratory animals because they are closely related
to humans. Rhesus monkeys are not an endangered species and their
reproductive organs function almost identically to those of
humans. Female rhesus monkeys even have a menstrual cycle the
same length as that of humans. This similarity, and the similar
scarcity of eggs, would mean that any cloning technique developed
successfully in rhesus monkeys would likely be applicable to
humans. (BBC, "Multiple monkey cloning attempt," 9 Apr 1999)
++ GE insulin has saved the lives of thousands of diabetics
-- The high incidence of diabetes correlates closely with
high consumption of refined sugars. A preventive approach to
diabetes control will reduce, if not eliminate, the need for GE
insulin. The alarming trend today is that, increasingly, as food
companies, chemical companies and pharmaceutical companies merge,
the same giant firms are now creating both the causes of disease
as well as their cure.
6.4. CLAIM: GE IS CONSISTENT WITH OUR ETHICAL BELIEFS
-- Vegetarians try to avoid all animal food; but without
labeling they can't be sure that animal genes have not been
inserted into their vegetables. Jews and Muslims have rigid laws
against eating certain animals, yet their tomatoes or lettuce may
one day contain pig genes. (NYTimes full page ad, 18 Oct 1999)
-- Some orthodox rabbis, for example, say their strict
dietary laws require them to know when a foreign gene -- say, a
pig gene -- has been spliced into their food. No pig genes have
been put into crops, but one has been experimentally engineered
into salmon to accelerate growth. (Rick Weiss, Washington Post,
15 August 1999)
-- What of the suffering of genetically altered animals? One
GE "super pig" was unable to walk or stand. A GE "super salmon"
had a monster head and couldn't swim, eat, or breathe properly.
There are hundreds of such outcomes. (NYTimes full page ad, 18
Oct 1999)
-- More than two dozen genes from human beings have already
been engineered into various animals. If we eat them, can we call
it cannibalism? (NYTimes full page ad, 18 Oct 1999)
6.5. CLAIM: RELIGIOUS AUTHORITIES APPROVE OF MOST GE TECHNOLOGIES
++ Vatican experts voiced a "prudent yes" to GE plants and
animals, but restated Church objections to human cloning and the
modification of the human genetic code. Members of the Pontifical
Academy for Life presented on Oct. 12 two volumes of documents on
ethics and genetic technology, after more than two years of
discussion and study. "We are increasingly encouraged that the
advantages of genetic engineering of plants and animals are
greater than the risks. The risks should be carefully followed
through openness, analysis and controls, but without a sense of
alarm," said Bishop Elio Sgreccia, vice president of the
pontifical academy. "We give it a prudent 'yes,'" he said. "We
cannot agree with the position of some groups that say it is
against the will of God to meddle with the genetic make-up of
plants and animals." (CNS, 3 Nov 1999)
<http://www.inverizon.com/nnews1.htm>
-- You cannot resort to authority on moral issues. This is a
matter to be settled within every individual's conscience, taking
into account the irreversibility of GE advances.
6.10. OTHERS
9.0. Websites On Genetic Engineering:
http://www.safe-food.org/welcome.html
http://www.natural-law.ca/genetic/geindex.html
http://www.greenpeace.org/~usa/reports/biodiversity/roundup
http://www.greenpeace.org/~comms/cbio/geneng.html
http://www.indiaserver.com/betas/vshiva/
http://users.westnet.gr/~cgian/biotech.htm http://www.rafi.ca
http://www.purefood.org
http://www.med.upenn.edu/~bioethic/genetics/articles.html
http://www.ucsusa.org/agriculture/ag.docs.html
http://www.k2net.co.uk/~savage/ef/earthfirst.html
http://www.essential.org/crg/
http://www.envirolink.org/orgs/shag/
http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~rone/gedanger.htm
http://www.bio-integrity.org
http://www.natural-law.org/issues/genetics/ge_hazards.html
http://www.bio-integrity.org/ http://www.peg.apc.org/~acfgenet/
http://www.indians.org/welker/genome.htm
http://www.solbaram.org/articles/clm505.html
http://www.netlink.de/gen/home.html
http://www.psagef.org/indexgen.htm
http://home.earthlink.net/~alto/boycott.html
http://www.notmilk.com http://www.biotech-info.net
10. MISCELLANEOUS:
++ The strong anti-GE feelings in Europe is due to the
Europeans' distrust of their governments following such food
scares as the "mad cow" disease and the dioxin-tainted food in
Belgium. This springs from deep-seated cultural differences.
"There is more reverence for nature there and more of a belief
that food is sacred. Americans don't mind eating McDonald's and
junk food... but Europeans eat traditional foods they've eaten
for thousands of years, as they do in India. They're perceiving
GM foods as somehow unnatural when really there is no cause for
alarm." Prakash says that the GE produce and products on the
American market are safe and "have been thoroughly tested in
terms of their safety and environmental impacts." (Dr. C.S.
Prakash, a geneticist and professor of biotechnology at Tuskegee
University in Tuskegee, Ala.)