THE ISSUE –Introduction –References –Books –Links FOR THE INDUSTRY –GE Crops –Non-GE Sources –Non-GE Certification FOR THE CONSUMER –What to Eat –Brand Names –Enzymes –For Your Garden THE CAMPAIGN –Sign the Petition –Link to Us –In Your Area –Materials –About Us GE NEWS ARCHIVE –Index

Mothers for Natural Law Genetically Engineered Foods —Good for us and our Planet? John Fagan, Ph.D., Scientific Advisor to Mothers for Natural Law Genetically engineered versions of virtually every fruit, vegetable, grain, and legume have already been created in the laboratory. At present only a few of these foods and a few genetically engineered enzymes and additives have reached the food stores. But the biotechnology industry is working overtime to create an avalanche of these man-made species that will inundate our food supply in the next few years. From the claims of proponents one would think that these foods are the greatest thing that has ever happened to humanity. They say that they will create “another green revolution” that will provide abundant food without harming the environment. But if you look more closely at these claims, it becomes quite clear that they are extravagantly exaggerated. These overblown claims ignore fundamental, unavoidable limitations of this technology, and, more importantly, they ignore the fact that eating these foods can be hazardous to your health, and growing them can threaten the environment. Even if a person does not know much about the topic, the term “genetic engineered food” conjures up rather bizarre and unnatural images out of Jurassic Park or Frankenstein. Proponents of this new technology typically try to calm these reservations by claiming that genetic engineering is a natural but more precise extension of the traditional breeding practices that humanity has been using for thousands of years to improve the plants and animals that provide our food. “Natural” and “more precise”—are these claims accurate? The fact is that genetic engineering is not natural. It is a radical, revolutionary, and highly artificial approach to changing our foods. Furthermore, that claim of greater precision is nothing more than scientific double-talk. I say this based on many years of experience using genetic engineering in my own research. Let me fill you in on a few details. The blueprints for every part of our bodies, and of every plant and animal, are contained in DNA molecules, which are found inside the cells that make up those organisms. These blueprints are called genes. Genetic engineering uses artificial laboratory techniques to cut and splice genes from different organisms to make new, artificial genes. This is essentially a process of genetic surgery. When these artificial genes are introduced into plant and animal cells they reprogram the functioning of those cells so as to change the characteristics of that plant or animal. If this is done with a food-producing organism, the qualities of the food will be altered. Is this a natural extension of traditional breeding practices? It does not look that way to me. Whereas traditional breeding makes use of natural reproductive mechanisms, and must respect the natural reproductive barriers between species, genetic engineering uses artificial means to aggressively penetrate those barriers. Genetic engineers can isolate genes from virtually any organism on the planet and introduce those genes into any other living thing on earth. When you introduce a gene from a fish into a tomato or from bacteria into corn, or from a virus into a squash, you are doing something that would never happen in nature. For the genetic engineer, there are no limitations, except their own creativity and good judgment. We know that human creativity knows no bounds, and we have seen time and time again that human judgment is far from infallible. This sets up a situation in which abuses are almost guaranteed. And, as we will see, they have already happened. How about the claim that genetic engineering is highly precise? It is true that we can cut and splice genes very precisely in the test-tube, and proponents wax poetic about this precision. But this is only half of what is required to create a genetically engineered food. Once an artificial gene has been constructed in the test tube, it must be inserted into the food-producing organism. And this is a highly imprecise process whose results are extremely unpredictable and uncontrollable. How do researchers get artificial genes into a plant or animal? In plants, for instance, the most common way to accomplish this is with a machine called the gene gun, which shoots tiny gene-coated pellets at plant cells. Scientists have virtually no understanding of how DNA shot into a cell in this way actually gets incorporated into the cell's own DNA, and they have no control whatsoever over this process. They just shoot the DNA into the cell and hope for the best. This totally random process actually disrupts the natural sequence of genetic information of the organism. That means it causes mutations, and these mutations can alter the functioning of the organism, and therefore the properties of the food produced by it. Such changes can alter the nutritional value of the food. They can also cause the food to contain unexpected allergens or toxins. To me, this does not seem to be a precise procedure, but just the opposite. There is another factor that greatly limits the ability of genetic engineers to predict and control the outcome of their manipulations: It is impossible to confidently predict the effects of genetic manipulations because of the complexity and interconnectedness of living organisms. Whether we examine the simplest single-celled microorganism, or a human being, or the global ecosystem, we find that each consists of a huge number of complex components. These components take part in extremely intricate, coordinated interactions, all as part of one, vast, integrated, unified, living phenomenon. Within any cell, even that of the simplest of organism, there is another vast world of complex subcellular structures, organelles, molecular networks, and metabolic pathways, each composed of a variety of biomolecules. All work together in an integrated, interdependent manner. At present biologists have not even catalogued all of these interactions, let alone subjected them all to detailed analysis. Until these are all well understood, it will be impossible to predict the full extent of the effects of any change in the genetic blueprints of the living things that provide our food. The difficulty of controlling and predicting the effects of genetic manipulations is even greater when genes from highly divergent organisms—fish and tomato, bacteria and corn, squash and virus—are mixed together, as genetic engineers are now doing. An example of this inability to reliably predict and control the outcome of genetic manipulations already came to light when genetic engineers in Japan altered the genes of bacteria for the purpose of making them produce large amounts of the food supplement tryptophan. They had already been using these bacteria as little factories for tryptophan production, but hoped to make this process more efficient, and therefore more profitable, through genetic engineering. They succeeded in souping up these bacteria so that they produced tryptophan much more efficiently, but, unexpectedly, their genetic manipulations also caused the bacteria to produce a powerful toxin. The genetic engineers had no idea that their tinkering had created this deadly contaminant, until the supplement was put on the market and people started getting sick and dying. Altogether, 1500 Americans were permanently disabled and 37 died from this defective product. Because it was not labeled as genetically engineered, it took months to track down the source of the problem and take the product off the market. My question is this: If genetic engineers do not have enough control over their technology to safely modify even the simplest of organisms—a single celled bacterium—does it make sense to trust them to meddle with the far more complex plants and animals that provide most of our food? Another example illustrates how genetic manipulations can cause foods to become allergenic: Genetic engineers at Pioneer Hybrid International, the largest seed company in the world, introduced a gene from brazil nuts into soy beans for the purpose of improving their nutritional content. However, to their surprise, that brazil nut gene also caused the soybeans to be allergenic to certain people. Fortunately this problem was detected before these soybeans were placed on the open market. Thus no harm was done. In the grand scheme of things, brazil nuts are much more closely related to soybeans than a flounder is to a tomato or an insect is to a squash. Just think how much more impossible it is to predict fully the outcome of mixing genes from such distantly related organisms. Genetically engineered crops can also be a threat to the environment. There are already many studies showing that genetically engineered crops can transfer their synthetic genes to wild plants through cross-pollination. This process of “gene flow” can have serious impacts on the environment and on agricultural productivity as well. For instance, studies have shown that rape seed—the plant from which we get canola oil—when genetically engineered to be resistant to herbicides, can transfer those genes to wild relatives. A wild plant that is resistant to herbicides can become a headache to farmers—another troublesome weed that they must contend with. The flow of other genes can alter the dynamics of the ecosystem. For instance, if a wild plant picks up a gene for drought resistance, it may gain the ability to thrive in locations—those with less water—where it would normally not survive. When that plant moves into that new location, it will displace the plants that naturally grow there. In turn the organisms that use those displaced plants for a home or for food will be themselves displaced, and likewise the ones that rely on those organisms will be compromised. It is obvious that this domino effect can have huge—and totally unpredictable—effects on an ecosystem. Despite the fact that proponents claim that genetic engineering will make agriculture less harmful to the environment, the reality is that most of the genetically engineered crops developed to date, not only perpetuate, but also extend the chemical approach in agriculture. This approach is depleting our soil, diminishing the nutritional value of our food, and tainting it with toxic and carcinogenic substances. For instance, nearly 50% of all genetic manipulations of crops have been carried out for the purpose of making them resistant to herbicides. Herbicide resistant crops allow the farmer to spray the fields heavily to kill weeds, knowing that the crop plants will not be hurt. This seems convenient, but it is estimated that this will increase the use of these toxic chemicals at least three-fold. Already 80% of America's ground water is polluted by herbicides and other toxic and mutagenic agricultural chemicals. Predictably, chemical companies have been busily engineering these crops to stimulate sales of their herbicides, but we, the consumers, do not need high-tech crops that exacerbate pollution. In the long run, these herbicide-resistant crops will also create more work for farmers, as mentioned above, by generating herbicide-resistant weeds. The over-emphasis on genetic engineering and other high-tech approaches in agriculture is especially regrettable because it is unnecessary. Far safer, sustainable agricultural methods are available that can feed all of humanity. Excessive reliance on high-tech methods, most recently genetic engineering, has stunted the implementation of sustainable farming approaches that are based on understanding deeper levels of natural law. These sustainable approaches are capable of efficiently and cost-effectively providing nutritious food without disrupting the environment and squandering precious, non-renewable resources. The examples presented above demonstrate clearly that genetic engineers have big aspirations, but at present do not really have control over the outcome of their manipulations. Yet, constant pressure from the biotech industry has compelled our Food and Drug Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, and Department of Agriculture to actually relax the standards for testing the safety of genetically engineered foods and for assessing the impact on the environment of producing these foods. These regulations are already lax and toothless, but industry continues to press for even more freedom in order to maintain “competitiveness” in the global race to capitalize on this new technology. At this point many genetically engineered foods will receive only a cursory safety review before release onto the open market. Even more disturbing is the fact that the Food and Drug Administration has decided that we the consumers “need not know” which foods in the grocery store are genetically engineered. As a result, when you go to the grocery store tomorrow, you will not be able to choose whether you want to take home natural squash, corn, tomatoes, and potatoes for your family to eat, or genetically engineered ones that may be safe, but on the other hand may not. These are experimental foods, foods that are yet not fully shown to be safe. We, as citizens of a free and democratic nation, should have the right to choose whether or not we eat these experimental foods. Yet, the quiet influence of powerful corporations has manipulated the agencies that are supposed to protect our health and our rights as consumers. This has led to a situation in which we are all being made guinea pigs in a nutritional experiment of national—even global—proportions. In addition to the consumers' right to know, there is another fundamental ethical issue related to the commercialization of genetic engineering—the patenting of life. One of the cornerstones of the biotechnology industry is the ability to patent the genetic blueprints of plants, animals, and human beings. These blueprints have existed since time immemorial, yet in the name of economic expediency, governments around the world are allowing multinational corporations to claim ownership of these genes. According to the law of this land, many genes that are part of your body and mine are already owned by these companies, as are the genes of many foods. This is simply not in accord with natural law. By taking a stand against genetically engineered foods, Mothers for Natural Law have come out as protectors of values that cannot be denied without placing all of humanity in jeopardy. These include the health and safety of our children and all generations to come; the welfare of the environment; and our fundamental human rights. I commend Mothers for Natural law for taking a strong stand on this issue, and I pledge to assist and support them in any way that is within my ability. Back to "What Other Scientists Say"