Download Greenpeace in depth genetic engineering (food) document What is

Greenpeace in depth genetic engineering (food) document
What is a gene?
Every plant and animal is made of cells, which have a nucleus.
Inside every nucleus there are strings of DNA organised into structures called
chromosomes.
If all the DNA in the human body were unravelled it would reach the moon and
back 8000 times!
Each cell normally holds a double set of chromosomes; one is inherited from
the mother and one from the father.
One set of chromosomes from each parent combines when the sperm
fertilises the egg (in the case of animals) or pollen fertilises the ovum (in the
case of plants).
The cell formed after fertilisation divides into two identical copies, which inherit
this unique new combination of chromosomes. These embryonic cells then
continue to divide again and again. The inherited genetic material, carried in
the chromosomes, is therefore identical in each new cell.
DNA is often described as a blueprint that contains all the essential
information needed for the structure and function of an organism while genes
are the individual messages that make up the blueprint; each gene coding for
a particular characteristic.
Although this concept can be a helpful tool for understanding, it runs the risk
of reducing the organism to a machine, and viewing physiology as little
different from a series of industrial processes. (1)
In reality, however, genes are very difficult to define and can only be
understood within their context - a living organism.
No gene works in isolation. Genes are sequences of DNA that operate in
complex networks, which are tightly regulated to enable processes to happen
in the right place, and at the right time.
This intricate network is informed and influenced by environmental feedback
in relationships that have been evolving over millions of years.
According to Barbara Mc Clintock, who won the Nobel Prize in 1983 for her
pioneering work in the field of genetics, the functioning of genes is “totally
dependent on the environment in which they find themselves”. (2)
References:
1. Kollek R. The gene - that obscure object of desire , from the book "The Life
Industry".
2. Fox Keller E. (1986) Love, power and learning (Liebe, Macht und
Erkenntis), Hanser: Munich, p.179.
What is genetic engineering?
Variety is achieved in traditional forms of breeding by selecting from the
multitude of genetic traits that already exist within a species’ gene pool.
In nature, genetic diversity is created within certain limits. A rose can be
crossed with a different kind of rose, but a rose will never cross with a mouse.
Even when species that may seem to be closely related do succeed in
breeding, the offspring are usually infertile. For example, a horse can mate
with an ass, but the offspring, a mule, is sterile. These boundaries are
essential to the integrity of any species.
In contrast to traditional breeding, genetic engineering involves taking genes
from one species and inserting them into another in an attempt to transfer a
desired trait or character. For example, selecting a gene which leads to the
production of a chemical with antifreeze properties from an arctic fish (such as
the flounder) and splicing it into a tomato or strawberry to make it frostresistant.
It is now possible for plants to be engineered with genes taken from bacteria,
viruses, insects, animals or even humans.
It is suggested that, because we have been modifying the genes of plants and
animals for thousands of years, genetic engineering is simply an extension of
traditional breeding practices.
Although it is true that the food crops we are eating today bear little
resemblance to the wild plants from which they originated, there are clear
differences between genetic engineering and traditional breeding.
How is this done?
There are a number of techniques in the genetic engineer's toolkit.
Biochemical 'scissors' called restriction enzymes are used to cut the strings of
DNA in different places and select the required genes.
These genes are usually then inserted into circular pieces of DNA (plasmids)
found in bacteria. Because the bacteria reproduce rapidly, within a short time
thousands of identical copies (clones) can be made of the 'new' gene. Two
principal methods can then be used to insert a 'new' gene into the DNA of a
plant that is to be engineered.
1. A 'ferry' is made with a piece of genetic material taken from a virus or a
bacterium. This is used to infect the plant and in doing so smuggle the
'new' gene into the plant's own DNA. A bacterium called Agrobacterium
tumifaciens, which usually causes gall formation in plants is commonly
used for this purpose.
Or
2. The genes are coated onto large numbers of tiny pellets made of gold or
tungsten, which are fired with a special gun into a layer of cells taken from
the recipient plant. Some of these pellets may pass through the nucleus of
a cell and deposit their package of genes, which in certain cases may be
integrated into the cell's own DNA.
Genetically engineered (GE) animals and fish are produced by microinjection.
Fertilised eggs are injected with new genes which will, in some cases, enter
the chromosomes and be incorporated into the animal's own DNA.
Because the techniques used to transfer genes have a low success rate, the
scientists need to find out which of the cells have taken up the new DNA. So,
before the gene is transferred, a 'marker gene' is attached that codes for
resistance to an antibiotic.
Engineered plant cells are then grown in a medium containing this antibiotic
and the only ones able to survive are those that have taken up the 'new'
genes with the antibiotic-resistant marker attached. These cells are then
cultured and grown into mature plants.
It is not possible to guide the insertion of a new gene with any accuracy, and
this random insertion may disrupt the tightly controlled network of DNA in an
organism.
Unpredictable effects
Current understanding of the way genes are regulated is extremely limited.
Any change to an organism’s DNA at any point may have side effects that are
impossible to predict or control.
A gene coding for red pigment was taken from a maize plant and transferred
into petunia flowers. Apart from turning white, the flowers also had more
leaves and shoots, a higher resistance to fungi and lowered fertility. (1)
Lignin is the strengthening and protective substance of woody plants. There
are attempts to design GE trees with reduced levels of lignin to make them
easier to process and pulp for the paper industry. However, a number of
studies have shown that when the genes important to lignin production have
been manipulated, there have also been unanticipated negative side effects,
such as abnormalities or stunted growth in the trees. (2)
Since it is not possible to insert a new gene with any accuracy, the gene
transfer may disrupt the tightly controlled network of DNA in an organism. The
new gene could, for example, alter chemical reactions within the cell or disturb
cell functions. This could lead to instability, the creation of new toxins or
allergens, and changes in nutritional value. (3)
Monsanto’s GE oilseed rape has higher levels of pro-vitamin A and also a
significantly decreased level of vitamin E, and an altered fatty acid
composition. (4)
When US researchers compared the levels of phytoestrogens (hormone-like
substances in plants) between conventional soybeans, and GE soybeans
treated with Monsanto's herbicide 'Roundup', they found that the
phytoestrogen levels in the GE soybeans was reduced. (5)
A yeast was genetically engineered for increased fermentation purposes. This
led to the production of a metabolite called methyl-glyoxal in toxic and
mutagenic concentrations. (6)
References:
1. Meyer P., Linn F., Heidemann I., Meyer H., Neidenhof I., Saedler H. (1992)
Endogenous and environmental factors influence 35S promoter methylation of
a maize A1 gene construct in transgenic petunia and its colour phenotype,
Mol. Gen. Genet., Vol. 231, p. 345.
Tappeser B. (1990) Gutachten zur wissenschaften Zielsetzung und dem
wissenschaftlichen Sinn des Freisetzungsexperimentes mit transgenen
Petunien. Oeko-Institut e.V., Freiburg.
2. Piquemal, J., Lapierre, C., Myton, K., O'Connell, A., Schich, W., GrimaPettenati, J. & Boudet, A-M. (1998) Down-regulation of cinnamoyl-CoA
reductase induces significant changes of lignin profiles in transgenic tobacco
plants. Plant Journal, 13, 71-83
Lapierre C., Pollet B., Petit-Conil M., Toval G., Romero J., Pilate G., Leple
J.C., Boerjan W., Ferret V., De Nadai V. & Jouanin L. (1999) Structural
alterations of lignins in trangenic poplars with depressed cinnamyl alcohol
dehydrogenase or caffeic acid o-methyltransferase activity have an opposite
impact on the efficiency of industrial Kraft pulping. Plant Physiology, 119, 153163.
Hu W.J., Harding S.A., Lung J., Popko J.L., Ralph J., Stokke D.D., Tsai C.J. &
Chiang V.L. (1999) Repression of lignin biosynthesis promotes cellulose
accumulation and growth in transgenic trees, Nature Biotechnology, 17, 808812.
3. Fagan J. Assessing the safety and nutritional quality of genetically
engineered foods, http://www.psagef.org/jfassess.htm (as of April 2001)
4. Christine K. Shewmaker, Juli A. Sheehy, Maureen Daley, Susan Colburn
and Dang Yang KE (1999) Seed specific overexpression of phytoene
synthase: increase in carotenoids and other metabolic effects, The Plant
Journal, 20 (4), 401 - 412)
5. Lappé, M.A., Bailey, E.B., Childress, C.C. & Setchell, K.D.R. (1999)
Alterations in clinically important phytoestrogens in genetically modified,
herbicide-tolerant soybeans. Journal of Medicinal Food, Vol. 1
6. Inose T., Murata K. (1995) Enhanced accumulation of toxic compound in
yeast cells having high glycolytic activity: a case study on the safety of
genetically engineered yeast. Int. J. Food Science Tech. 30: 141-146.
Inadequate safety testing of genetically engineered (GE) food
Many people became aware of genetically engineered (GE) food for the first
time in 1996 when soybeans grown in the US were genetically engineered by
Monsanto to be resistant to their best-selling herbicide Round-up.
Over 40 percent of the US soybean harvest is exported, and when the first
consignment of GE soya arrived in Europe, it was already mixed in with the
conventional harvest.
The American Soybean Association rejected calls to segregate the GE soya
on the basis that it was 'substantially equivalent' to ordinary soya. (1)
The theory of 'substantial equivalence' has been at the root of international
guidelines and testing of GE food. According to this principle, selected
chemical characteristics are compared between a GE product and any variety
within the same species. If the two are grossly similar, the GE product does
not need to be rigorously tested on the assumption that it is no more
dangerous than the non-GE equivalent.
" ...substantial equivalence does not function as a scientific basis for the
application of a safety standard, but rather as a decision procedure for
facilitating the passage of new products, GE and non-GE, through the
regulatory process."
-The Royal Society of Canada (2)
From a scientific standpoint, the use of 'substantial equivalence ' as a basis
for risk assessment is seriously flawed, and cannot be depended on as a
criteria for food safety.
GE food may contain unexpected new molecules that could be toxic or cause
allergic reactions. A product could not only be substantially equivalent but
even be identical with its natural counterpart in all respects bar the presence
of a single harmful compound.
In 1992, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published a policy
statement which stated that it "is not aware of any information showing that
foods derived by these new methods differ from other foods in any meaningful
or uniform way ....". (3)
It has become clear, however, as a result of thousands of pages of internal
documents that were released during a lawsuit filed by a number of public
interest groups against the FDA, that this statement is in fact inconsistent with
the views of many of the FDA's own scientists.
FDA microbiologist Dr Louis Pribyl, for example, stated: "There is a profound
difference between the types of unexpected effects from traditional breeding
and genetic engineering ....". (4)
Similarly, Dr E.J. Matthews of the FDA's Toxicology Group warned that ". GE
plants could contain unexpected high concentrations of plant toxicants," and
cautioned that some of these toxicants could be unexpected and could be
uniquely different chemicals that are usually expressed in unrelated plants."
(5)
The numerous internal critiques of the proposed policy were summed up by
Dr. Linda Kahl, FDA compliance officer, who protested that the agency 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."
"The processes of genetic engineering and traditional breeding are different,"
she declared, "and according to the technical experts in the agency, they lead
to different risks." (6)
References
1. American Soybean Association (November 1996) European Response to
Genetically Modified Soybeans, Press release.
2. The Royal Society of Canada (2001) Elements of Precaution:
Recommendations for the Regulation of Food Biotechnology in Canada,
Ottawa, p.182 <www.rsc.ca/foodbiotechnology/GMreportEN.pdf> (as of (April
2001)
3. Statement of Policy: Foods Derived From New Plant Varieties, May 29,
1992, Federal Register vol. 57, No. 104 at 22991
4. Comments from Dr. Louis J. Pribyl re: the "Biotechnology Draft Document,
2/27/92." March 6, 1992 <www.biointegrity.org> (as of April 2001)
5. Memorandum from Dr. Edwin J. Mathews to the Toxicology Section of the
Biotechnology Working Group. Subject: "Analysis of the Major Plant
Toxicants." October 28, 1991. <www.biointegrity.org> (as of April 2001)
6. Comments from Dr. Linda Kahl, FDA compliance officer, to Dr. James
Maryanski, FDA Biotechnology Coordinator, about the Federal Register
document "Statement of Policy: Foods from Genetically Modified Plants."
January 8, 1992 <www.biointegrity.org> (as of April 2001)
GE products on the market
By December 1998, the following genetically engineered (GE) products had
received approval in the US - herbicide-resistant canola (oilseed rape),
radicchio, maize, cotton, soybeans; insect-resistant maize, cotton and
potatoes; virus-resistant papaya, potato, squash, canola (oilseed rape)
designed to produce high concentrations of lauric acid, tomatoes engineered
to delay their ripening or have thicker skins, a rabies vaccine, a bacterium
designed to enhance nitrogen fixation in the soil, and a growth hormone
(rBST/rBGH) designed to boost milk production in dairy cows. (1)
Sixteen GE crops were granted marketing approval in the EU by December
1998. (2)
Of these, the only ones to receive unanimous approval by all the member
states were two varieties of GE carnation: one with improved vase life and
one with altered colouring. All other approvals were disputed.
Products officially approved as safe have subsequently been banned in
certain countries, while the introduction of many of the food crops that were
approved are now subject to delays due to concern about their impacts on
health and the environment.
Besides the carnations mentioned above, the crops granted EU approval
include herbicide-resistant tobacco, maize, chicory (allowed for breeding
prupose only), soybeans, oilseed rape and insect- resistant maize. (3)
The GE ingredients already in European shops include soybeans and maize.
"Within five years and certainly within 10 years 90-95 percent of plant-derived
food material in the US will come from GE techniques."
-Val Giddings, Vice President for Food and Agriculture of the Biotechnology
Industry Organisation (4)
Most GE crops already on the market are designed to resist herbicides or
insects.
Over the next few years, the industry plans to introduce more crops with
'quality traits‘ perceived as benefits for consumers or the food processing
industry. For example, the attempt to engineer fruit and vegetables that ripen
more slowly so they can be transported over greater distances and kept for
longer on supermarket shelves without losing the appearance of being fresh.
(5)
Other kinds of GE food on the way include the so-called 'functional foods' and
'nutraceuticals', which claim to enhance health and wellbeing. Examples
include foods with added vitamins and altered nutritional values, such as
Vitamin A rice or low-fat crisps from potatoes that have a higher starch
content and less water so they can be fried in less oil. (6)
References:
1. Union of Concerned Scientists, 'What's Coming to Market?', The Gene
Exchange: A Public Voice on Biotechnology and Agriculture, Fall/Winter 1998
<www.ucsusa.org/Gene/w98.market.html> (as of April 2001).
2. Most of these approvals have certain restrictions e.g. the crops have been
approved for import only, but not for planting, crops approved for breeding
purpose only etc.
3. GeneWatch UK (1999) Genetic Engineering: A Review of Developments in
1998, GeneWatch Briefing Number 5, p. 2
4. Quoted by Kathy Koch in the 4 September 1998 issue of the Congressional
Quarterly Researcher.
5. Evans D. (1996) Produce-on-demand: What's good for US markets is good
for world markets too, Nature Biotechnology Vol. 14, p. 802.
6. Marvin Hayenga (1998) Structural Change in the Biotech Seed and
Chemical Industrial Complex, AgBioForum, Vol. 1 No. 2; GeneWatch (1999)
Genetic Engineering: A Review of Developments in 1998, Briefing Number 5,
p. 6; RAFI (1999) The Gene Giants: Masters of the Universe?, Communiqué
March/April 1999 <www.rafi.org/communique/fltxt/19992.html> (as of April
2001)
Public concern
With few exceptions, governments in industrialised countries are keen to
promote genetically engineered (GE) food.
However, surveys have highlighted a discrepancy between government
attitudes and those of the public.
People's concerns are frequently dismissed as irrational, and based upon a
lack of understanding; yet despite government and industry attempts to
'educate' the public, opposition to genetic engineering continues to grow.
Choice - consumers are worried that lack of segregation and labelling,
together with the fact that so many foods are being introduced will leave them
unable to exercise free choice.
Health - people are becoming aware that there is a scientific basis to safety
concerns about GE food and are reluctant to replace food they know to be
safe with food that might not be. A lack of trust in official assurances of safety,
which has been exacerbated by the BSE crisis in Europe, has made people
very suspicious of claims that there 'is no evidence of harm'.
Ethics - for some people the main issue is not whether GE food is safe or not,
but that it is unnatural and unnecessary. For some it offends deeply held
principles about the relationship between humanity and nature.
Politics - People are concerned that under international free-trade
agreements, governments are prioritising the financial interests of big
business over health, environment and socio-economic considerations. (1)
Profit - trade in GE food and crops is dominated by a handful of multinational
corporations such as Monsanto, Syngenta, Aventis and DuPont. It is widely
believed that these are the only beneficiaries of GE foods.
Environment - there is growing evidence that genetic engineering poses new
hazards to ecosystems, with the potential to threaten biodiversity, wildlife and
truly sustainable forms of agriculture. Critics of the technology argue that once
GE organisms are released into the environment they may transfer their
characteristics to other organisms and never be recalled or contained.
References:
(1) In a document leaked to Greenpeace, PR firm Burson Marsteller advised
EuropaBio (a consortium of biotechnology companies with interests in
Europe) to refrain from partaking in any public debate and leave it to " those
charged with public trust, politicians and regulators, to assure the public that
biotech products are safe." See: Communications Programmes for EuropaBio,
Burson Marsteller, January 1997.
Labelling
When people began to realise they were eating genetically engineered (GE)
food without their knowledge or consent, there were immediate calls for
mandatory segregation and labelling. (1)
In May 1998, Codex Alimentarius (the UN body responsible for establishing
international rules on food policy) rejected these demands in favour of a more
limited labelling regime that suited the food and genetic engineering
industries. (2)
The concept of 'substantial equivalence' was used to argue that GE food was
'equivalent' to food produced by other means, and that labelling would
therefore be discriminatory and constitute an illegal trade barrier.
Biotech companies were afraid that a labelling system would give consumers
the ability to boycott GE products, and that segregation would need to be
introduced in to implement labelling schemes.
The EU in 1998, having been under sustained pressure from the public,
introduced a partial labelling scheme that covered transgenic soybeans and
maize.
Most processed food in Europe contains soya and maize ingredients, the
majority of which are derivatives such as soya oil, lecithin and corn (maize)
syrup.
Yet these derivatives were excluded from the new labelling scheme because
the industry argued that most of the GE DNA would be destroyed when the
food was processed.
Surveys have found that even so, most people want the right to know if the
method of production used for food they are eating involves genetic
engineering, and they may have ethical reasons or environmental concerns
that make them want to avoid it.
In April 2000, the EU extended the labelling legislation to include additives
and flavourings that were genetically engineered or produced from GE
organisms. However, as with the soybeans and maize, GE additives and
flavourings are excluded from the labelling scheme if they do not contain DNA
that is detectable in the end product. (3)
Despite the labelling regime introduced in Europe being widely criticised and
regarded as inadequate, the US government was adamant that there be no
labelling or segregation whatsoever. "We will not tolerate segregation," said
US Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman. "We will not be pushed into allowing
political science to govern these decisions. The stakes for the world are
simply too high (4). We will lead the fight against those who represent what I
believe is a know-nothing position on these issues we will not allow passion to
trump reason on this issue." (5)
US Trade Representative Charlene Barshevsky estimated that the EU
proposal for segregating and labelling GE food could disrupt $4-5 billion in
annual US agricultural exports. (6) And there is evidence that the US
government had been applying pressure on other countries to reject labelling
regulations.
A New Zealand cabinet document from 19 February 1998 showed that the US
had threatened to pull out of a potential free-trade agreement with the New
Zealand government because of its plans to test and label GE food. The
document stated that "The US have told us that such an approach could
impact negatively on the bilateral trade relationship and potentially end any
chance of a New Zealand - US Free Trade Agreement." (7)
In spite of threats such as this, growing public concern about genetic
engineering has forced more governments to introduce labelling schemes that
cover GE ingredients.
By May 2001, the countries that had pledged to introduce some form of
manadatory labelling systems included Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, the
Czech Republic, all 15 countries of the EU, Hong Kong, Israel, Japan, Latvia,
Mexico, Norway, the Philippines, Poland, the Republic of Korea, Russia,
Saudi Arabia, Switzerland, Taiwan and Thailand. (8)
Although organic farms are increasingly under threat of contamination from
GE crops, eating organic produce is still the most certain way of avoiding GE
food.
In 1998, the US Department of Agriculture put forward legislation that would
have compromised this, proposing that GE food could be labelled as 'organic'.
In spite of heavy lobbying by the biotech industry, the USDA was forced to
drop its plans after receiving an unprecedented 275,000 letters of complaint.
(9)
References
1. Consumers International, which called upon Codex for mandatory labelling,
represents 235 consumer organisations in 109 countries.
2. Consumers International (28 May 1998) International Committee Rejects
Consumer Call for Mandatory Labelling of Genetically Engineered Food,
press release
http://193.128.6.150/consumers//news/pressreleases/codex270598.h tml (as
of April 2001)
3. European Commission regulation 50/2000 of 10 January 2000 on the
labelling of foodstuffs and food ingredients containing additives and
flavourings that have been genetically engineered or have been produced
from GE organisms.
4 Environment News Service, London (20 June 1997)
www.envirolink.org/environews/ens/ (as of April 2001)
5. Leila Corcoran, Reuters, Washington (17 July 1997)
<www.geocities.com/Athens/1527/egypt.html> (as of April 2001)
6. Reuters, Washington (19 June 1997) US warns EU not to impede farm
trade over biotech
7. Cabinet Minutes from the New Zealand Government (19 February 1998).
Reported in a feature article in UK newspaper the Independent on Sunday on
the 22nd of November '98.
8. USDA FAS GAIN Report #AS9026 (4 June 1999) Australia and genetically
modified Organisms 1999.
USDA GAIN report #EZ0020 (29 December 2000) Czech republic
Biotechnology new law comes into Force January 1, 2001.
South China Morning Post (1 April 2000) GM Food Labelling Policies
Imminent.
Israel to adopt GMO labeling,
<http://www.oryza.com/global/genetic/index.shtml> (as of April 2001)
USDA GAIN report #JA0128 (8 November 2000) Agricultural biotechnology in
Japan 2000.
USDA GAIN report #KS1009 (2 March 2001) Republic of Korea
Biotechnology Enforcement of Biotech labelling for unprocessed commodities
2001.
Reuters (31 March 2000) Mexican Senate passes bill on genetic food labels.
Polish News Bulletin (25 April 2000) New Regulations for Genetically Modified
Foods. p. 19.
USDA GAIN report #RS9057 (24 November 1999) Russian federation Food
and Agricultural Import regulations and standards - Russian biotech labelling
law - 1999.
USDA GAIN report #SA0021 (18 December 2000) Saudi Arabia Biotechnolgy
- Saudi Arabia Bans Imports of GMO Animal Products, revises GMO labelling
& Extends Grace period.
Swiss Federal Health Office (14 June 2000) Deklarationslimite für
gentechnisch veränderte Lebensmittel. Press release; SR 916.307
Verordnung über die Produktion und das Inverkehrbringen von Futtermitteln.
Art. 23 Deklaration gentechnisch veränderter Futtermittel; USDA FAS attaché
report (4 December 2000) Taiwan - Bioengineered Food Labeling Proposal.
9. Ronnie Cummins (8 November 1998) S.O.S. Save Organic Standards!
Round Two, Food Bytes No. 14,
<http://www.purefood.org/Organic/foodByt14.htm> (as of April 2001)
Who is in control?
The genetic engineering industry is dominated by a handful of multinational
corporations with interests in food, chemicals and seeds.
"The common denominator of our business is biology. The research and
technology is applied to discover, develop and sell products that have an
effect on biological systems, be they human beings, plants or animals."
-Daniel Vasella, CEO of Novartis (1)
By the year 2000, just five corporations (Astra-Zeneca, DuPont, Monsanto,
Novartis, and Aventis) accounted for virtually 100 percent of the market in
transgenic seeds. These five corporations also accounted for 60 percent of
the global pesticide market and 23 percent of the commercial seed market. (2)
In December 1998, Germany's Hoechst and France's Rhône-Poulenc merged
to form Aventis, "the world's biggest life science company", with combined
sales of $20 billion per annum. (3)
Days later, UK-based Zeneca Group PLC and Astra AB of Sweden
announced the largest-ever European merger. At more than $70 billion, the
combined assets of the new company was larger than the 1997 gross national
product of 93 countries. (4)
In March 1999, DuPont announced that it would pay $7.7 billion to buy the
remaining 80 per cent stake in Pioneer Hi-Bred International, the world's
largest seed company. (5)
Between 1996 and 1998, Monsanto spent $8 billion on new acquisitions,
incorporating seed companies, genetic engineering companies and other
related interests. (6)
However, faced with huge debts and a plummeting stock value, Monsanto
was soon forced to find a way to protect its pharmaceuticals business from
being adversely affected by the growing opposition to GE foods.
In December 1999, Monsanto announced that it would join its pharmaceutical
wing with Pharmacia-Upjohn in a $27 billion merger; Monsanto's agricultural
wing was to become a separate legal entity with 80 per cent of the stock held
by the fused enterprise.
Other life science companies have acted similarly to protect their
pharmaceutical businesses.
In November 1999, Novartis announced that it was to spin-off its huge
agricultural biotech division in a new venture with most of Astra-Zeneca's
agrochemical and seeds activities, forming a new company called Syngenta.
(7)
The acquisition of seed companies is an integral feature of the consolidation
underway within the genetic engineering industry. It has led to the virtual
demise of much of the independent seed industry in industrialised countries,
(8) and near monopolies which now help to guarantee markets for new GE
crops.
This, together with sweeping patents and contractual agreements with
farmers, grain elevators and processing companies, means that the life
science industry is increasingly in control of the food supply all the way from
the laboratory to the dinner plate.
In November 1998, Cargill, the world's biggest grain exporter, announced a
merger that would allow it to control 45 per cent of the global grain trade. (9)
Forty percent of US vegetable seeds come from a single source (10). The top
five vegetable seed companies control 75 percent of the global vegetable
seed market (11).
By 1999, Delta and Pine Land Co, joint holders with the USDA of the patent
on Terminator technology, controlled over 70 percent of the US cottonseed
market (12).
"This is not just a consolidation of seed companies; it's really a consolidation
of the entire food chain."
-Robert T. Fraley, Co-President (in 1998) of Monsanto's agricultural sector
(13)
Most industrialised countries are encouraging investment in the genetic
engineering industry, and are keen to create a regulatory climate that is
attractive to the industry.
In a document leaked to Greenpeace, public relations firm Burson Marsteller
demonstrated its confidence in the proactive stance of national governments.
Burson Marsteller advised EuropaBio (a consortium of GE companies with
interests in Europe) to refrain from partaking in any public debate and leave it
to " those charged with public trust, politicians and regulators, to assure the
public that biotech products are safe (14)."
The European Commission has been most obliging, allocating millions of
pounds of public money to projects designed to persuade people of the
benefits of genetic engineering.
The 'FACTT' project has been granted UK £1 million (with a similar amount
being contributed by the industry) to promote the sales of GE oilseed rape. It
aims to bring about "the creation of familiarity with and acceptance of
transgenic crops for farmers, extension organisations, processing industry,
regulatory organisations, consumer groups and public interest groups." (15)
In the US, the government has been criticised for 'revolving doors' between
the White House and the genetic engineering industry. Many of the people
now sitting on key regulatory bodies such as the Food and Drug
Administration have strong links to the very corporations they are supposed to
be regulating (16).
References
1. Quoted in David Pilling (9 December 2001) The Facts of Life: Chemical and
Pharmaceutical Companies see their future in biological innovation, Financial
Times, p. 21.
2. RAFI (26 November 1999) Seedless in Seattle, news release, 26
November 1999
3. RAFI (1999) The Gene Giants: Masters of the Universe?, Communiqué,
<www.rafi.org/communique/fltxt/19992.html> (as of April 2001)
4. RAFI (1999) The Gene Giants: Masters of the Universe?, Communiqué,
<www.rafi.org/communique/fltxt/19992.html> (as of April 2001); Figures on
the size of national economies comes from the World Bank's World
Development Report (1998/99), World Bank, Oxford University Press, Table
1, p. 190-1
5. RAFI (1999) The Gene Giants: Masters of the Universe?, Communiqué,
<www.rafi.org/communique/fltxt/19992.html> (as of April 2001)
6. RAFI (1999) The Gene Giants: Masters of the Universe?, Communiqué,
<www.rafi.org/communique/fltxt/19992.html> (as of April 2001)
7. RAFI (21 December 1999) RAFI on Monsanto merger: Pharma-gedon,
<www.rafi.org> (as of April 2001)
8. Union of Concerned Scientists (1998) From the Editor's Desk: big and
bigger, The Gene Exchange: a public voice on biotechnology and agriculture,
<www.ucsusa.org/Gene/su98.big.html> (as of April 2001)
9. US National Farmers Union (26 January 1999) Action needed to halt
consolidation in the agricultural industry, news release. Cited in: RAFI (1999)
The Gene Giants: Masters of the Universe?, Communiqué,
<www.rafi.org/communique/fltxt/19992.html> (as of April 2001)
10. Friedland J. and Kilman S. (28 January 1999) As geneticists develop an
appetite for greens, Mr. Romo flourishes, Wall St. Journal
11. Grooms L. (January 1999) With merger completed, Harris Moran focuses
on future', Seed & Crops Digest
12. Personal communication to Luke Anderson from Hope Shand, Rural
Advancement Federation International, 5 January 2000
13. R. Fraley, in Farm Journal. Quoted in: Flint J. (1998) Agricultural industry
giants moving towards genetic monopolism, Telepolis, Heise Online
<www01.ix.de/tp/english/inhalt/co/2385/1.html> (as of April 2001)
14. Burson Marsteller (January 1997) Communications Programmes for
EuropaBio
15. FACCT: A project to promote Familiarisation with and Acceptance of
Crops incorporating Transgenic Technologies in modern agriculture. A
demonstration project under Framework Programme IV-European
Commission. Paper OCS 8/96, Annex D & Draft Technical Annex-19
December 1995.
16. A report put out by the Edmonds Institute and the Third World Network
contained the following details about senior posts in the biotech industry and
the US government:
- 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.
- 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.
- L. Val Gidings - 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 Organisation
(BIO)
- 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.
- 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.
- Josh King - former director of production for White House events, now
director of global communication in the Washington, D.C. office of Monsanto
Corporation.
- 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.
- 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).*
- 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.
- 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 now again with the law firm of King & Spaulding.*
- 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.
- 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.
*Margaret Miller, Michael Taylor, and Suzanne Sechen (an FDA "primary
reviewer for all rBST and other dairy drug production applications" ) were the
subjects of a U.S. General Accounting Office investigation in 1994 for their
role in FDA's approval of Posilac, Monsanto's formulation of recombinant
bovine growth hormone. The GAO Office found "no conflicting financial
interests with respect to the drug's approval" and only "one minor deviation
from now superseded FDA regulations". (Quotations are from the 1994 GAO
report).
Antibiotic resistance
For medical professionals around the world, antibiotic-resistant bacteria are
fast becoming a serious problem.
In some hospitals the common pathogen Staphylococcus aureus is resistant
to almost all known antibiotics. (1)
The main causes suspected for the build-up of resistant bacteria are the
overuse of antibiotics in medicine and animal feed.
A study from East Germany demonstrates the speed at which resistance can
spread.
In 1982, the antibiotic streptothricin was administered to pigs. By 1983,
plasmids resistant to streptothricin were found in the pigs' gut bacteria. This
resistance had spread to the gut bacteria of farm workers and their family
members by 1984, and to the general public and pathogenic strains of
bacteria the following year. The antibiotic was withdrawn in 1990, yet the
prevalence of the resistant bacteria remained high when monitored in 1993.
(2)
The marker genes used in genetic engineering confer resistance to antibiotics
commonly used in human and veterinary medicine. Some scientists believe
that eating GE food containing these marker genes could encourage gut
bacteria or oral bacteria to develop antibiotic resistance.
In 1996, the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes advised the
UK government to vote against an authorisation being sought by Novartis
(now Syngenta) for a GE maize containing a marker gene resistant to
ampicillin. They felt that the presence of this intact marker gene, together with
a bacterial promoter gene that would enable it to operate in bacteria, posed
an unacceptable risk. (3)
A study published in 1999 indicates that oral bacteria could pick up DNA
released from food or other bacteria within the mouth. (4)
Experiments are even showing that the potential exists for genes for antibiotic
resistance (or any other genes) to be transferred to bacteria and other
microorganisms from GE crops growing in the field.
In one experiment, GE rape, black mustard, thorn-apple and sweet peas all
containing antibiotic-resistant genes were grown together in the laboratory
with the fungus Aspergillus niger. In some cases their leaves were added to
the soil. In each of the experiments, the genes for antibiotic resistance ended
up being transferred to the fungus. (5)
References
1. 7th Report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and
Technology (1998) Resistance to Antibiotics and other Antimicrobial Agents.
2. Tschäpe H. (1994) The spread of plasmids as a function of bacterial
adaptability, FEMS Microbiology Ecology 15:23-32; Ho, M-W. Traavik, T.
Olsvik, O. Tappeser, B. Howard, V. Weizsacker, C. McGavin, G. (1998) Gene
Technology and Gene Ecology of Infectious Diseases, Microbial Ecology in
Health and Disease, 10: 33-59
3. AgBiotech, News and Information 8 (9): 159N.
4. Mercer D., Scott K., Bruce-Johnson A., Glover L. and Flint H. (1999) Fate
of Free DNA and Transformation of the Oral Bacterium Streptococcus
gordonii DL1 by Plasmid DNA in Human Saliva, Applied and Environmental
Microbiology, Vol 65, No. 1, p 6-10)
5. Hoffmann T., Golz C. and Schieder O. (1994) Foreign DNA sequences are
received by a wild-type strain of Aspergillus niger after co-culture with
transgenic higher plants, Current genetics 27: 70-76.
The Potential For Allergic reactions
In the US, one quarter of all people report that they have an adverse reaction
to one or more foods. (1)
All foods contain proteins, the basic building materials of a cell. For people
who are unable to tolerate proteins found in certain foods, eating even trace
amounts of these foods causes allergic reactions ranging from minor
discomfort to a serious illness or even death.
In genetic engineering, genes are transferred from one organism to another.
This gene transfer results in the production of new proteins. If a new protein
happens to be one that causes an allergic reaction, food that was previously
safe for a person could become dangerous for them to eat.
A seed company called Pioneer Hi-Bred International engineered soybeans
with a gene from a brazil nut in the hope that it would improve the soybean's
protein content. Researchers at the University of Nebraska tested these
soybeans on samples of blood serum taken from people who were allergic to
brazil nuts. The tests indicated that if these people had eaten the soybeans,
they would have suffered an allergic reaction that could have been fatal. (2)
"In the special case of transgenic [GE] soybeans, the donor species was
known to be allergenic, serum samples from persons allergic to the donor
species were available for testing and the product was withdrawn. The next
case could be less ideal, and the public less fortunate."
Marion Nestle Ph.D., The New England Journal of Medicine (3)
Because most genes being introduced into GE plants come from sources that
have never been part of the human diet, such as bacteria, insects and
viruses, there is no way of knowing whether or not the products of these
genes will cause allergic reactions.
Some people could develop a sensitivity to a GE food gradually after being
exposed to it over time; others might have an acute allergic reaction after
eating a minute amount.
Unfortunately, the lack of labelling effectively undermines any attempt to
monitor GE foods. If allergies do develop, it will be extremely difficult to trace
them to their source.
References
1. Sloan A., Powers M. (1986) A perspective on popular perspections of
adverse reactions to foods, Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 78:
127-133.
2. Nordlee J., Taylor S., Townsend J., Thomas L., Bush R. (1996).
Identification of a brazil-nut allergen in transgenic soybeans. The New
England Journal of Medicine, 334(11): 688-692; Melo V. et al. (1994)
Allergenicity and tolerance to proteins from Brazil nut (Bertholletia excelsa
H.B.K.), Food Agric Immunol 6, 185-195.
3. Nestle M. (1996) Allergies to transgenic foods: Questions of policy, The
New England Journal of Medicine, 334(11): 726-727.