by Naomi Perian
Mention the word "pollution" and most people picture billowing smokestacks, nasty oil spills or spewing effluent. Yet the recent development of a variety of genetically engineered crops ushers in a qualitatively new kind of pollution with the potential to destroy entire ecosystems: biological pollution. Included in this new wave of genetically altered crops are strawberries containing flounder genes designed to allow the berries to keep better after freezing and corn spliced with virus genes in the hope of creating disease resistance. Genetically engineered crops such as these are living organisms, and once introduced into the environment, they can interact with surrounding life-mutating, multiplying and breeding. The cultivation of these crops brings pollution into a new realm-the gene pool-and poses huge risks for the environment and human health.
WHAT IS GENETIC ENGINEERING?
For years, farmers have used the natural process of cross-breeding closely related species of plants in order to develop hybrids with certain desired traits. Genetic engineering takes the process out of the fields and into the laboratory by allowing scientists to cut out genes, or bits of a living organism's DNA, and splice them into totally unrelated species. Biotechnology companies have been selling U.S. farmers genetically altered seeds for nearly five years, releasing these new organisms into the environment and the food chain with inadequate testing or safeguards.
ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS LOOM
Biological pollution from the introduction of genetically engineered organisms into the natural world can cause irreversible environmental damage. One major threat is the evolution and rampant spread of "superweeds"-undesirable plant species with a high tolerance for otherwise toxic chemicals. These weeds could develop in areas where a genetically engineered crop has been planted. For instance, Monsanto makes "Roundup Ready" seeds, including soybean, canola (oilseed rape), corn and cotton, that are engineered to withstand direct applications of glyphosate, an herbicide Monsanto sells under the trade name "Roundup." When these crops are introduced into the environment, the herbicide-resistance gene can be transferred through pollen to surrounding plants. Once this occurs, farmers will have to run the "chemical treadmill," using increasingly higher levels of the herbicide or turning to new chemicals to prevent weeds from taking over the fields.
In addition to problems with the spread of traditional weeds, genetically engineered crops may themselves become difficult to contain. Because many of these crops have been designed to be especially hardy, they can potentially spread throughout the surrounding environment and become serious problems. The agro-chemical and biotech company Zeneca is already marketing a new herbicide to farmers in Canada who have experienced problems with Monsanto's "Roundup Ready" canola that has invaded their fields like a weed, but can't be controlled with Roundup.
Another potential threat spurred on by genetically engineered crops is the evolution of "superbugs," or bugs with a high tolerance for toxic pesticides. This possibility is a particular concern in the case of the new "plant pesticide" crops that have been engineered to produce a bacterial toxin as they grow. Monsanto, for example, has engineered its New Leaf potato to contain Bacillus thuringiensis or Bt toxin genes. Bt is a pesticide permitted for emergency use by organic farmers, due to its relatively benign impact on the environment. As the New Leaf and other Bt crops are widely cultivated, insects will be increasingly exposed to the toxin and are likely to develop a tolerance to it very quickly, rendering Bt useless. While other farmers may resort to other, more toxic chemical insecticides, organic farmers will have lost their only emergency pest control option. This threat to organics led Greenpeace (joined by over 30 organic farming organizations) to file a petition to the EPA in 1997, calling on the agency to cancel their approval of Bt crops.
These environmental threats hint at the devastating nature of biological pollution. Once introduced into the environment, genetically engineered organisms can reproduce or interact with other species, and have the potential to cause irreversible damage. Second only to loss of habitat, "exotic" plant and animal species introduced into ecosystems in which they did not evolve are already among the greatest threats to biodiversity. The release of genetically engineered organisms into the environment is likely to hasten this loss in diversity, possibly altering the natural balance beyond remedy.
YOUR HEALTH AT RISK
Along with the potential for environmental devastation, genetic engineering poses a multitude of threats to human health. One such threat-the potential for allergic reactions-has already become reality. Contrary to the company's expectations, when Pioneer Hi-Bred International added a Brazil nut gene to soybeans in an attempt to make the soybeans more complete proteins, people with nut allergies developed allergic reactions to the soybeans. While nuts are known to cause allergic reactions in some people, most engineered foods involve proteins that have never been tested for their allergenic potential. Thus the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's policy, which requires labeling only if one of a few known allergens is involved in the genetic transfer, fails to protect individuals with sensitivities to rare or unknown allergens.
Another health threat is an increase in human resistance to antibiotics. Biotechnology companies have continued to use genes for antibiotic resistance as "markers" to aid the engineering process, despite widespread warnings from medical experts. As the cultivation of genetically engineered crops increases, important antibiotics could be rendered useless.
In addition, genetically engineered foods may prove toxic to both humans and wildlife. For instance, according the Union of Concerned Scientists' Web site, some new crops are being engineered to suck heavy metals out of the soil like a sponge, storing them in inedible portions such as leaves or roots. This process has been designed to allow the use of municipal sludge--which contains vital nutrients along with toxic heavy metals--as fertilizer. If, however, the process goes awry, the metals could end up in the part of the plant that humans eat and poison our food supply.
LAWS LAGGING BEHIND TECHNOLOGY
Our regulatory system is unprepared for the issues raised by genetic engineering. The overall regulatory structure leaves a lot of room for new crops to fall through the cracks-and onto our dinner tables-without sufficient prior testing. Furthermore, the United States government does not require that genetically engineered foods be labeled as such, and the very companies that would have us believe in the safety of these foods are at the same time lobbying hard to avoid the mandatory labeling. By opposing warning labels, these companies are denying us the right to make informed choices as consumers.
THE NEED FOR PRECAUTION
It is important to keep in mind that while laboratories are controlled environments, nature is not. Organisms in an ecosystem are interrelated in a complex web. We cannot possibly predict all of the threats posed by new technology such as genetic engineering. The question, then, becomes whether or not we are willing to allow biotechnology companies to put the health of the environment and our own health on the line.
WHAT CAN YOU DO? (include pull-out postcard)
1. Buy organic. Thanks to written comments from over 275,000 outraged consumers the United States Department of Agriculture was recently forced to withdraw a scandalous proposal for "organic standards" which would have included genetically engineered produce. This victory means that foods labeled organic will remain free from genetic engineering.
2. Add your voice to the growing number of individuals demanding labeling of genetically engineered foods. In May 1998, a coalition of scientists, health professionals, consumers, farmers, chefs and religious leaders filed a lawsuit demanding that the FDA require labeling and safety testing of these experimental foods. See the pull-out action postcard in this magazine for more details.
WIDESPREAD PUBLIC REJECTION (sidebar)
Although biotechnology companies would like us to think nothing of biting into a genetically modified potato or tomato, a vast majority of people-in this country and abroad-would prefer to eat unadulterated foods. A 1997 Market and Opinion Research International/Greenpeace poll in Europe shows that up to 70 percent of consumers do not want genetically engineered products in their food supply. A poll sponsored by Novartis, an industry giant in genetic engineering, found that 93 percent of consumers in the United States want genetically engineered foods labeled and that 54 percent support organic farming over genetically engineered crops or pesticide use.
In November of 1998, Greenpeace released two leaked internal documents from Monsanto, confirming widespread public opposition to genetic engineering. One of the documents, reporting on public opinion in Britain, addressed the failure of Monsanto's $1 million European advertising campaign last summer. The company's pollster found that despite Monsanto's advertising efforts, there was "an on-going collapse of public support" for genetically engineered foods. The second document on German consumer's sentiments, states that "In the focus groups, biotechnology companies were seen to be willing to risk great human danger in order to make profits."
GREENPEACE TAKES AIM AT GENETIC ENGINEERING
Greenpeace believes that a precautionary approach necessitates a ban on further releases of genetically engineered organisms. We are calling for thorough safety testing and mandatory labeling for all genetically engineered foods already on the market. This past Halloween, Greenpeace staged a number of press conferences to spread the word about the "horror" of genetically engineered foods. The events were held in conjunction with Chefs Collaborative 2000, a nationwide group of chefs dedicated to supporting sustainable farming, food production, and cooking practices. Greenpeace enlisted the aid of well-known chefs around the country to help educate restaurant-goers and the general public. Many of the chefs who participated in the events also placed posters in their restaurants and signed a petition demanding labeling of genetically engineered foods.
LET THE BUYER BEWARE
The fact that most genetically engineered products are not labeled can frustrate shoppers who want to buy unadulterated foods. Purchasing certified organic food as much as possible is the best strategy.
When buying conventional, or non-organic produce, it can be hard to tell what products have been genetically engineered. One strategy is to talk to your grocer about suppliers' policies regarding genetically engineered foods.
You can also try to avoid those foods that are most commonly subject to genetic engineering, such as conventional processed foods containing any of the following ingredients: Soy or soy products (about 60% of all processed foods contain soy, most commonly as soy lecithin, flour or oil). Corn (including corn syrups, cornstarch and oil). Canola oil. You should also scrutinize processed foods that contain potatoes or tomato products. Write to companies whose products you purchase and ask for their assurance that they will not use genetically altered ingredients. Dairy products are also a concern, as cows may have been given growth hormones. Look for a notice that the dairy is "BGH (bovine growth hormone) Free," or buy organic.
OTHER ARTICLES:
Fields of Greed; "Terminator Technology" Could Make Monsanto Rich and Devastate the Environment
Monsanto, the large agro-chemical company that brought us toxic pesticides, Agent Orange and other environmental disasters, is at it again. This time, the company is attempting to increase its profits by ensuring that farmers are forced to buy seeds every year, rather than saving seeds for replanting as farmers have done for millennia.
In March 1998 the United States Department of Agriculture and the Delta and Pine Land Company, now a Monsanto subsidiary, were granted a patent on a genetic engineering technique commonly referred to as "terminator technology." Plants engineered using this technology would contain a gene for a toxin that will render the seeds sterile. In addition to the resultant economic burden on farmers who are forced to buy new seed each year, there are environmental risks involved. Scientists warn that the trait for seed sterility could transfer to surrounding plants, thus spreading sterility through the ecosystem and posing an irreversible threat to biodiversity. In regard to "terminator technology," the United Nations Conference of Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP IV) urged "Parties, Governments as well as civil society and public and private institutions to consider the precautionary approach in its application." The fact that the USDA may receive royalties from this technology gives the agency a financial incentive to work for the industry's benefit, even at the expense of farmers and the environment.
The corporations involved in genetic engineering would have us believe that these new crops are a panacea for the world's hunger problems. However, the evidence suggests otherwise. By favoring farming systems that diminish plant diversity and promote large-scale industrial agriculture over family farming, developments such as terminator technology will threaten the food security of farm communities worldwide. "The only winner is Monsanto, with more control over food production and an even greater economic gain," said John Kinsman, vice president of the National Family Farm Coalition and life-long family farmer. Alternatives such as a shift toward family farming or organic agriculture would encourage diversity in the food supply and benefit the environment instead of company coffers.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
Write to USDA Secretary Dan Glickman and demand an end to negotiations for commercial development of the "Terminator Technology." See the action pull-out postcard in this magazine for more information.
PULL-OUT POSTCARD TEXT:
Dear Secretary Glickman:
I am writing to urge that the USDA immediately cease negotiations to license U.S. patent #5,723,765- "Control of Plant Gene Expression," to Monsanto subsidiary Delta and Pine Land Company. This "terminator technology" poses an irreversible threat to biodiversity and the world's food supply and tramples on farmers' long-recognized right to save seeds for replanting. I urge the USDA to abandon its applications for foreign patents on this technology, which would render farm-saved seeds sterile. I further urge you to end all negotiations for commercial development of this procedure and to stop promoting the hazardous products of biotechnology. Sincerely, ______________
