Book review
Joana Blythman, Britain’s leading investigative food journalist tells us in The Food We Eat: The Book You Cannot Afford to Ignore that “There are 3,000 or so genetically altered or ‘transgenic’ foods that have to date been tested worldwide. Unlike traditional breeding, genetic engineering permits scientists to move genetic material – DNA – from one living organism to another, irrespective of the species barrier. The genetic engineer can introduce human genes into animal ones and in the future ‘transgenic’ foods may contain genes from hundreds of unrelated species of animals, insects, plants and bacteria. These constructions of disparate genetic material have never before been part of the food chain and no one knows how they will affect it. Since transgenic foods are such a major departure it seems logical that they should be labeled as such. But the large transnational companies who dominate gene research think that consumers might be put off. They have argued that there is nothing to fear because transgenic foods are a harmless extension of traditional ‘improving’ techniques. There is one course of action for the concerned consumer. Write to your supermarket and ask it to guarantee that any transgenic food it sells will be labeled.”
In Genetically Engineered Foods: Are They Safe? You Decide, Laura and Robin Ticciati tell us that: “John Fagan was a molecular biologist funded by the NIH to conduct genetic engineering research in relation to cancer. Disturbed by the direction in which biomedical research was heading and, concerned that his work could be used for potentially dangerous applications, he launched a global campaign to alert the public about the hazards of genetic engineering.” “Genetically engineered foods must be taken off the market until they are proven safe for us and the environment, and until that happens, they must be labeled.” “Genetic engineering, according to its developers, was created to improve food production, reduce the use of pesticides and herbicides, and increase yields to feed our growing world population.” “Genetic engineering uses what is called recombinant DNA technology – a kind of genetic surgery that enables the genetic engineer to cut, splice and recombine genes – to alter the characteristics of an organism.” “When a donkey breeds with a mare, the crossbreed – a mule – is sterile. Nature does not support further propagation or transformation of mule DNA. Natural law has set a boundary. Genetic engineering is not constrained by these rules and crosses all boundaries set in place by natural law.” “Because safety testing on genetically engineered foods is not rigorous, no one knows their long-term risks, either to our health or to the environment. Genes from bacteria, viruses and insects, which have never been part of the human diet, are being spliced into our food. No one really knows if they are safe.” “A genetically engineered bacterium developed to aid in the production of ethanol produced residues which rendered the land infertile. New corn crops planted on this soil grew 3 inches tall and fell over dead.” “In 1989, a genetically engineered form of the food supplement tryptophan contained toxic contaminants. As a result, 37 people died, 1,500 were permanently disabled, and 5,000 others became very ill.” “Human growth hormone spliced into pigs resulted in crippled, blind and immuno-compromised animals. Cows injected with recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), have shorter life expectancies and increased incidence of disease.” “In 1994, US researchers patented a hybrid variety of quinoa plant, a native highland grain grown in South America where it is an important high-protein food for millions of people. The researchers did nothing to modify the plant but now they have the right to prevent anyone else from making, using or selling that particular quinoa hybrid without their permission.” “Genetic engineering is too new and potentially too hazardous to be in a hurry to take it out of the labs and put onto our dinner tables.” “Without our knowledge or consent, we have all become subjects in a highly controversial experiment. At the very least, genetically engineered foods must be labeled so that we can choose for ourselves whether we will eat them or not.”
GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS
ARE THEY SAFE/ YOU DECIDE.
LAURA TICCIATI & ROBIN TICCIATI, Ph.D.
KEATS PUBLISHING 1998
www.natural-food.com
Preface
• John Fagan is a molecular biologist who had been funded by the NIH for many years to conduct genetic engineering research in relation to cancer. In 1994, he decided to stop. He was disturbed by the direction in which biomedical research was heading, concerned that his work could be used for potentially dangerous applications and launched a global campaign to alert the public about the hazards of genetic engineering.
• We believe that genetically engineered foods must be taken off the market until they are proven safe for us and the environment, and until that happens, they must be labeled.
Introduction
• The FDA projects that 100-150 new genetically engineered foods will hit the market by the year 2000. These foods have not been subjected to thorough pre-market testing, nor are they labeled.
• Seriously concerned about the potential dangers of genetic engineering to our health and the environment, as well as its inherent ethical implications, a global movement has sprung up urging that we slow down, look at the whole picture, and employ comprehensive, long-range thinking to guide the unfolding of this technology into our world.
Chapter One: Genetic Engineering – Hopes and Hazards
• Genetic engineering, according to its developers, was created to improve food production, reduce the use of pesticides and herbicides, and increase yields to feed our growing world population.
• Many scientists believe this technology reduces the nutritional value of our foods, perpetuates our international dependence on the chemical treadmill and disrupts the flow of intelligence in the genetic foundation of our ecosystem.
• Genetic engineering uses what is called recombinant DNA technology to alter the characteristics of an organism. Recombinant DNA technology is a kind of genetic surgery that enables the genetic engineer to cut, splice and recombine genes like a child building a tower out of letter blocks.
• A gene is responsible for a particular function or feature of an organism – e.g., red hair, blue eyes, resistance to cold. Genetic engineers use recombinant DNA technology to take the genes from one organism and inject them into another. It has been found that by introducing a gene of one organism into the DNA of another, a scientist can transfer the associated function or feature into the new organism.
• Is it safe to cross natural boundaries and create new species? What happens to the insects that feed on these new crops? What happens when the wind carries the pollen of these plants to neighboring fields? What are the reproductive implications of altering the genetic structure of an animal? Is it okay to tamper with God’s creation in this way? What effect will it have as these changes ripple through our intricate and profoundly interrelated ecosystem?
• Supporters assert that these questions are not appropriate because genetic engineering is simply an extension of the traditional crossbreeding that nature and farmers have been using for thousands of years. In fact, it is radically different. Crossbreeding uses natural reproductive mechanisms. Such mechanisms are only able to combine genetic material from the same or closely related species.
• Cauliflower can be crossbred with broccoli but not with zucchini. Furthermore, natural reproductive mechanisms combine the DNA of parent organisms in a very precise and systematic manner. This process does not allow a random selection of genes from one organism to be inserted into the DNA of another.
• The mixing of genes by crossbreeding is clearly subject to very definite rules – you can’t mix unrelated species and you can’t just drop in one gene on its own, you have to take the whole package of DNA. Where there are rules there are boundaries.
• When a donkey breeds with a mare, the crossbreed – a mule – is sterile. Nature does not support further propagation or transformation of mule DNA. Natural law has set a boundary. Genetic engineering is not constrained by these rules and crosses all boundaries set in place by natural law.
• When genetic engineers disregard the reproductive boundaries set in place by natural law, they run the risk of destroying our genetic encyclopedia, compromising the richness of our natural biodiversity and creating ‘genetic soup.’ What this means to the future of our ecosystem, no one knows.
• Dr. John Fagan, internationally recognized molecular biologist and former genetic engineer states, states: “We are living today in a very delicate time, one that is reminiscent of the birth of the nuclear era, when mankind stood at the threshold of a new technology. No one knew that nuclear power would bring us to the brink of annihilation or fill our planet with highly toxic radioactive waste. We were so excited by the power of a new discovery that we leapt ahead blindly, and without caution. Today the situation with genetic engineering is perhaps even more grave because this technology acts on the very blueprint of life itself.”
The Dangers of Genetically Engineered Foods
• Because safety testing on genetically engineered foods is not rigorous, no one knows their long-term risks, either to our health or to the environment. We do know, however, that genetic engineers can neither control nor predict the effects of genetic manipulations.
• Dr. Fagan explains: “Genetic engineers can cut and splice genes very precisely in a test tube, but the process of putting those genes into a living organism is extremely imprecise, inaccurate, and uncontrolled. Such manipulations can cause mutations that damage the functioning of the natural genes of the organism. Once a gene is inserted into an organism, it can cause unanticipated side effects. Mutations and side effects can cause genetically engineered foods to contain toxins and allergens and to be reduced in nutritional value.” What other dangers are there?
Damage to the ecosystem, harm to wildlife and change in natural habitats
• Insects, birds and wind can carry genetically altered seeds and pollen into neighboring fields and beyond, creating new species. These unpredicted and unknown species may endanger wildlife and alter essential ecological relationships between plants and animals.
Gene pollution can never be cleaned up
• Unlike chemical or nuclear contamination, new living organisms, bacteria and viruses will be released into the environment to reproduce, migrate and mutate. They will transfer their new characteristics or other organisms. These changes can never be recalled or contained. The effects of genetic mistakes are irreversible and irretrievable.
Increased pollution of food and water supplies
• Approximately 57% of the research of biotechnology companies is focused on the development of plants that can tolerate larger amounts of herbicides. It is estimated that this will triple the amount of herbicides used on crops, resulting in even more chemicals in our food and water.
Unpredictable, permanent changes in the nature of our food
• The genetic structure of plants and animals has been nourishing the human race for millennia. Now, genetic engineers are tampering with this structure. Genes from bacteria, viruses and insects, which have never been part of the human diet, are being spliced into our food. No one really knows if they are safe. Genetic engineering is not an exact science. The new genetic structure of a plant could give rise to novel proteins in our food with unknown results for our health.
Deletion of important food elements
• Genetic engineers may intentionally remove or inactivate a substance they consider undesirable in a food. This substance may have an unknown but essential quality such as natural cancer-inhibiting abilities.
Decreased effectiveness of antibiotics
• Antibiotic-resistance genes are incorporated into nearly every genetically engineered organism as markers to indicate that an organism has been successfully engineered. Scientists expect these genes and their enzyme products, which inactivate antibiotics, to be present in engineered foods.
Allergic reactions
• Genetic engineering may transfer new and unidentified proteins from one food into another, triggering allergic reactions. Allergic reactions can cause more than simple discomfort – they can result in life-threatening anaphylactic shock.
Harmful effects may not be discovered for years
• Changing the fundamental make-up of a food could cause new diseases, just as herbicides and pesticides did in the past. There are no long-term studies to prove the safety of genetically engineered foods. These products are not being thoroughly tested before they arrive on the grocery shelves – they are being tested on us.
• These common-sense concerns alone should be sufficient to justify a moratorium on the release of genetically engineered organisms into the environment and food supply. However, these products have already produced unexpected and harmful results indicating that these concerns are not to be dismissed as groundless or ignorant fears.
Unanticipated negative ecological impact
• A genetically engineered bacterium developed to aid in the production of ethanol produced residues which rendered the land infertile. New corn crops planted on this soil grew 3 inches tall and fell over dead.
New and higher level of toxins
• Many plants naturally produce a variety of compounds that are toxic to humans or alter food quality. Generally, these are present at levels which do not cause problems. Combining plants and animals species in genetic engineering may create new and much higher levels of these toxins. Corn and potatoes engineered to produce toxins that kill insects are now classified by the Environmental protection Agency as pesticides, rather than vegetables.
Unforeseen and undetected toxins
• In 1989, a genetically engineered form of the food supplement tryptophan contained toxic contaminants. As a result, 37 people died, 1,500 were permanently disabled, and 5,000 others became very ill.
Sick and suffering livestock
• In an early experiment, human growth hormone spliced into pigs resulted in crippled, blind and immuno-compromised animals. Cows injected with recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), have shorter life expectancies and increased incidence of disease. In addition, since the diet of most domestic animals is dominated by soy and corn, altering the composition of these crops can pose serious threats.
Chapter Four: Biotechnology Claims
Claims Versus Facts
Claim: Genetic engineering will feed the world.
Fact: The world can already grow enough food to feed everybody.
Claim: Genetic engineering will reduce the use of herbicides.
Fact: At least 27 corporations have initiated herbicide-tolerant plant research, including the world’s 8 largest herbicide/pesticide companies and virtually all the major seed companies, many of which have been acquired by these same chemical companies. The goal? To create companion seed/herbicide packages like Roundup and Roundup Ready soy. Here’s how it works: to buy the seed, the farmer must sign a contract agreeing to use only the brand name herbicide. Since the crop is resistant to the herbicide, the farmer can use more of it. Some scientists estimate that herbicide use will triple. There is always the possibility that the gene which enables the crop to tolerate the herbicide will be transferred to wild relatives of the crop, giving rise to herbicide resistant ‘superweeds.’ An experiment performed in France demonstrated that the herbicide resistant gene in genetically engineered oilseed rape (canola) spreads to wild radishes and persists through at least 4 generations. Some of the seed/herbicide packages use herbicides which are associated with birth defects, cancer, and liver damage.
Claim: Genetic engineering is environmentally friendly
Fact: This claim cannot be substantiated.
Claim: Genetically engineered foods are just like natural foods.
Fact: Nature has organized a prodigiously complicated inter-relationship among species to form a global food chain. Every little microorganism plays its part. Every species in the global ecology has its role. The biotech industry intentionally crosses boundaries set in place by nature. And has DNA so different it is patented. Genetically engineered foods are not like natural foods.
The Bottom Line
• The obvious profit motive belies the claims to altruism and protection of the environment. The actual activities of the companies involved reveals their true colors. The gene licensing agreement with the farmer leads to bioserfdom, while the mania for patenting has given rise to another indication of pure greed – biopiracy.
• In 1994, US researchers patented a hybrid variety of quinoa plant, a native highland grain grown in South America where it is an important high-protein food for millions of people. The researchers did nothing to modify the plant but now they have the right to prevent anyone else from making, using or selling that particular quinoa hybrid without their permission.
Conclusion
• In science, safety cannot be assumed. It must be proved by the scientist. The history of science is a history of ideas – some good, some bad, some dangerous, some benign. The experiments, research, testing, and ultimately time, pronounce the verdict. The reality is that genetic engineering is too new and potentially too hazardous for any of us – consumers, scientists, farmers, government officials, corporate executives – to be in a hurry to take it out of the labs and put onto our dinner tables.
• The bottom line is that no one knows if these foods are safe for us or our environment. Without our knowledge or consent, we have all become subjects in a highly controversial experiment. At the very least, genetically engineered foods must be labeled so that we can choose for ourselves whether we will eat them or not.
• Despite a recent survey by Novaris showing that 93% of Americans want genetically engineered foods labeled, our government not only refuses to require labels, it continues to support the biotech industry’s right to suppress labels even when individual food manufacturers want to provide their customers with complete information on this issue.
• The government must reverse its position. They must keep these foods out of our fields and our kitchens until they are scientifically proven safe for our environment and our families. But the government will only do this if we tell them to. So, it is up to us. As citizens, we must take responsibility for the future.
• We are at a time in our world’s history where we can no longer afford to violate the laws of nature in our haste for progress. We must not only acknowledge, but honor, the intimate relationship we share with everything in the universe. We need to shed our national addiction to profit-driven, quick-fix solutions and make a decision as a society to embrace technologies that support all of life, technologies that not only uphold and promote our collective growth but do not damage anyone or anything in the process.
• There is an order in the universe, a seamless web that nourishes and connects us all – from the tiniest seed, to the beating of our hearts, to the stars in the galaxies. Every time we act without reference to this underlying intelligence of natural law, we harm ourselves, each other, and our planet.