1. GE food may harm your health. Dr. Arpad Pusztai of the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen, Scotland found stunted growth and damaged immune systems, including damage to several major organs (kidney, spleen, thymus and stomach) after feeding genetically modified potatoes to rats.[1]
2. We are being told that GE foods are substantially equivalent to their natural varieties and that therefore it is not necessary to label them. This is totally unacceptable for a large number of reasons, not the least of which is that the consumer is supposed to have the sovereign right of choice of goods based on available information and knowledge. (The Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries has said that it opposes labeling because it will make GE foods "unsaleable"!! Yomiuri Shimbun 99/5/2)
3. Dr. Pusztai has said on television that he would not eat genetically modified foods himself and that it was "very, very unfair to use our fellow citizens as guinea pigs."[1]
4. Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) cannot be equivalents of their natural or conventionally bred hybrid counterparts, for several reasons:
a) Genetic material from different species is recombined. I.e. the "species barrier" is hurdled to combine genetic material from organisms that could not interbreed in nature.
b) The introduction of exotic genetic material into a genome (the totality of the genetic material of a cell or organism) may result in completely unpredictable biochemical or physiological traits in the new transgenic organism.
c) The introduction of new genetic material into a genome is generally carried out using "vectors". In order to do their work vectors must be capable of invading and inserting their genetic material into the cells of a wide range of species. Thus many are derived from disease-causing viruses and other such lovelies. They can pick up new genetic material and pass it on to a wide range of plants and animals -- effectively they are pathogenic gene-shufflers. Along with the inserted gene, marker genes for antibiotic resistance (inserted to help researchers know when new genes have "taken"). This may be contributing to the spread of antibiotic resistance. Promoter genes (often a specific one from the cauliflower mosaic virus is used) are also inserted with the new gene to prevent the target organism's genome from "silencing" the inserted gene. The promoter gene is known to be a source of instability in the resulting genome.[2]
5. The biotech companies oppose labeling of GE foods because by mixing non-GE and GE crops we can be forced to consume them without ever knowing what we are eating. That would enable them to market their wares to farmers without having to bother with tricky "public acceptance" issues.
6. As part of their PR strategy, biotech companies also tell us that transgenic crops will help alleviate world hunger, poverty and environmental problems. The logic is that increased yields (better land productivity) will increase farmers' income and reduce pressure on marginal land and other resources such as forests -- a second Green Revolution. For the following reasons (7-11) these are half-truths at best.
7. Hunger and poverty are caused by socioeconomic arrangements, the unequal distribution of power, and so in principle can only be solved through socioeconomic (political) changes. The Green Revolution of the 60s and 70s showed us that increased yields brought about by more technologically intensive agriculture favored richer farmers and further impoverished the already poor![3]
8. GE crop varieties are simply an extension of modern industrial-chemical agriculture (MICA) -- the use of fossil fuels to run machines and produce chemical fertilizers and pesticides in order to profit by producing food in the most "economically efficient" way while destroying the ultimate resource base, the soil. This does not reduce pressure on marginal land; it generates marginal land. Farming-for-profit agribusiness will always expand onto new lands, and also cause deterioration of existing land by eliminating inconvenient hedgerows and woods in order to farm the land more energy-intensively.[4, 5]
9. Another lesson the Green Revolution taught us was that monocultures of new varieties designed to be cultivated using the MICA system are ultimately inferior to traditional food-producing systems. New varieties might give higher yields for a time, but they are more susceptible to pests, diseases and other disasters than traditional mixed-variety crop systems. At the same time the new varieties drive out the traditional ones, making them hard or impossible to obtain later -- an irreversible loss of possibly crucial biodiversity.[3]
10. Further, susceptibility to pests and diseases encourages the use of chemical insecticides and pesticides, leading to severe degradation of the wildlife environment[5] and insecticide/pesticide resistance. This latter problem forces farmers to use chemicals more intensively and to have to switch to new chemicals and crop varieties every few years in order to keep up with resistance development, thus generally driving up the cost of inputs and increasing chemical contamination of the food we eat. GE crops will simply accelerate this treadmill.
11. Since it does not seem that GE crop varieties will actually give greater yields[6], then the benefits must be mostly economic (less spraying = reduced input and labor costs), despite the "technology fee" the farmer will have to pay for the privilege of using GE varieties. Thus real human benefits turn out to be zero. (A very high-yielding rice, 13 to 15 tons per hectare, is in the offing, but the rice is said to be good only for livestock feed. As one of the things we should be trying to do is reduce amounts of grain fed to animals, this does not really solve any problems, and could end up creating more.) So why are the biotech corporations so gung-ho about GE crops?
12. The way the biotech corporations are going to make their money is through patents. The owner of an invention is allowed exclusive rights of economic exploitation for 20 years. Fair enough, but during the 70s and 80s American courts allowed the extension of the patent system to cover GE "inventions."[7] True, the companies have invested millions in the research, but ask yourself whether or not patents on life are OK. Can we "invent" life? Is it OK to claim ownership rights over life forms or parts of life forms? (Oh, so GE stuff is unique when you make it, but the same when you eat it?!)
13. Everyone knows that you can plant seed and it will sprout and grow a new plant. Even hybrids, though you may not get the product you are expecting. With GE crops it is now illegal to plant the seed you have harvested -- you have to buy a new bag of seed if you want to plant the crop again, or face legal proceedings. In a few years we will begin to see (perhaps) the introduction of "terminator" seeds. These produce a crop of seeds which will not grow if replanted. This could effectively give biotech corporations control of the world's food system. Thus the corporations are happy to see traditional seed varieties disappear and contribute to biodiversity loss because of the profits and power it will bring them. But suppose something goes wrong and we end up with a biodisaster? Who will (who can) take responsibility for adverse and irreversible alterations to the genetic material of the biotic community?!
14. Biotech corporations appear to be fostering the notion that it is possible to take a "gene" (a sequence of bases on a DNA molecule) from one organism and insert it into the genome of another, where it will perform the same function without affecting anything else. This highly mechanistic and reductionist idea is based on a dogma that has been largely discredited over the last 20 years. Life turns out to be far more complex than tiny strings of beads that can be endlessly shuffled about for human convenience. Organisms and their genomes are fluid and adaptable, and if things look pretty stable it's because interactions between organisms have brought us to a dynamic equilibrium ("evolution"). Instead of looking at the world as if it were made up of discrete entities (the corporate worldview), we can get a better idea of what is going on if we see life as a process, a constant swirling and exchanging of genetic information. Genetic engineering is simply dangerous and obsolete science driven by profit-hungry and power-seeking corporations.[2] It betrays a corporate culture which is shallow and insensitive, and which fosters ignorance and irresponsibility towards nature, life and the planet Earth.
15. If that is not enough for you, let's see what else the biotech corporations have on their agenda besides microbes and plants. That must mean animals, and eventually us! Not necessarily genetic engineering, but directly related in the sense that it is all driven by biotech corporations out to enclose (privatize, own) the genetic commons and industrialize reproduction and the bodily functions for cash profit. Is it coincidence, for instance, that the Japanese people have recently been subjected to the media spectacle of multiple organ transplants following a brain death? What are we "being prepared" for? Xeno-transplants (animal organs transplanted to humans), genetic engineering of animals for pharmaceuticals and human organs? It's already happening. The commodification of the materials of human reproduction -- sperm, ova, fetuses? Genetic screening of embryos or prospective employees? Already commonplace in the USA.
16. Finally, eugenics and the cloning of humans. Won't happen? Since when was any technology limited to the obviously benign and beneficial uses? Technology has, and will continue to be, milked for all it's worth -- unless something changes. Eugenics will mean the industrial engineering and production of people with the "right stuff." Arbitrary judgements about who is to be valued and who not, and who is to be given the chance of life and who not. And what will cloning mean? Not only shuffling around the (and adding novel) genes to those who have no choice or say in the matter, the yet unborn, in a word "bioslavery". Living, breathing people (we're already doing it to animals) who will be owned by someone for a purpose. For companionship, to fight, to perform hazardous industrial tasks, for their organs, etc. Sounds like a great way to make a living. Sounds like a whole brave new society, too. One that we're not competent to implement medically or scientifically, and one we're not prepared for mentally, ethically, or legally. Where's the debate? Where's the information? Where's the right to choose whether we want this or not?[7, 8]
17. Apparently evolution is too slow. (Let's face it, we don't even really know who we are, so how come we feel it's OK to be tinkering around with our - or any other species' - DNA?) So some people have decided to speed it up a bit, just like we've been speeding up everything else with polluting and limited fossil fuels ever since the Industrial Revolution got under way just over 200 years ago. What happens when we run out of non-renewable fuels (fossil energy resources - oil, natural gas and coal - and uranium)?? We return to living at the speed of solar influx. Hopefully, we'll still have our genetic heritage intact.
Conclusion: Think before you munch.
----------
References:
[1] Peter Montague, Biotech: The Pendulum Swings Back, Rachel's Environment & Health Weekly #649, May 6, 1999, www.rachel.org
[2] Mae-Wan Ho, Genetic Engineering -- Dream or Nightmare, Gateway Books, 1998. The instability of transgenic crops is a major concern. "There is, in fact, 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 ever been provided by industry, nor requested by regulatory authorities." (Ho, Mae-Wan 1999. Dangerous Liason - Deadly Gamble p.105-120 in Agricultural Biotechnology and Environmental Quality: Gene Escape and Pest Resistance. National Agricultural Biotechnology Council Report #10. Ithaca NY.)
[3] Vandana Shiva, The Violence of the Green Revolution, Zed Books, 1991
[4] Tony Boys, An Historical And Cultural Perspective On The World Ecological Crisis, www.icc.ac.jp/shion/english/tonyb/papers/index.htm (1997)
[5] Graham Harvey, The Killing of the Countryside, Vintage, 1998
[6] Marc Lappe and Britt Bailey, Against the Grain, Earthscan, 1999
[7] Andrew Kimbrell, The Human Body Shop, Regnery, 1997
[8] Jeremy Rifkin, The Biotech Century, Tarcher/Putnam, 1998
# Frances M. Lappe et al, World Hunger: 12 Myths (2nd Edition), Grove Press, 1998 is a great book with a self-explanatory title.
# Vandana Shiva, Stolen Harvest - the hijacking of the global food supply, South End Press, 2000. A more recent an excellent book on world food issues by the Indian physicist and activist.
# The September/October 1998 issue of The Ecologist (Vol. 28 No 5) also contains many excellent papers on GE issues.
Notes:
1. Please feel free to send comments and questions to me at aboys@po.net-ibaraki.ne.jp.
2. References are intentionally vague. Readers are encouraged to dip into whichever of the above books and articles look interesting. More specific references for academic etc. purposes can be provided by contacting me at the e-mail address above. Serious requests only, please.
[First written May 1999, published in the New Observer, June 1999, this version 24 November 1999, with new reference attached 11 August 2000]
another opinion
fed up?