Main page 

News

Issues

Weather

Pak APIN

College Point

Crop Update

Water Status

Market Price

Model Farming

New Agri-Tech 

Bio Technology

Help Desk

Behtak the forum

Feed back

Email

Agri Overview

Directory

Advisory / BIOTECHNOLOGY

Genetically engineered food

Genetic engineering of food is an inherently risky process. Current understanding of genetics is extremely limited and scientists do not know the long-term effects of releasing these unpredictable foods into our environment and our diets. Yet, GE ingredients are freely entering our food without adequate safeguards in place and without explicit consumer consent and knowledge. 

Greenpeace believes this is unacceptable. A precautionary approach to public health and safety necessitates that where risks are unknown, such products or processes should not be deployed into the open. 

Although transnational companies and their political supporters want us to believe that this food is safe and thoroughly tested, growing awareness of the threats from GE food has sparked a global wave of rejection by consumers, farmers and food companies in many of the world's largest food markets. Due to consumer pressure supermarkets have cleared GE food from their shelves, global food companies have removed GE ingredients from their products and leading pig and poultry producers have promised not to food animal with GE feed. 

However, double standards are still common: while in Europe global food companies speak in favor of the consumer's right to know, label GE-food proactively and even remove GE ingredients from their products, they force-feed GE foods to consumers in other parts of the world without even labelling their presence. Greenpeace believes this is unacceptable. Consumers should have the right to know about GE ingredients in their food and the right to avoid GE food in all countries. 

1. What is a gene? 

2. What is genetic engineering? 

3. How is this done? 

4. Unpredictable effects 

5. Inadequate safety testing of genetically engineered (GE) food 

6. GE products on the market 

7. Public concern 

8. Labelling 

9. Who is in control? 

10. Antibiotic resistance 

11. The potential for allergic reactions 



1. What is a gene? 

Every plant and animal is made of cells, each of which has 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 of which 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, each of which inherits 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 which contains all the essential information needed for the structure and function of an organism, and genes are described as the individual messages which make up the blueprint, each gene coding for a particular characteristic. Although this concept can be helpful as a 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 which operate in complex networks that 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 McClintock, 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) 

2. What is genetic engineering?

In traditional forms of breeding, variety has been achieved 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 frost-resistant. It is now possible for plants to be engineered with genes taken from bacteria, viruses, insects, animals or even humans. 

It has been 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. 

3. 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 be able to find out which of the cells have taken up the new DNA. So, before the gene is transferred, a 'marker gene' is attached which codes for resistance to an antibiotic. Plant cells which have been engineered are then grown in a medium containing this antibiotic, and the only ones able to survive are those which have taken up the 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. 


4. Unpredictable effects

Current understanding of the way in which genes are regulated is extremely limited. Any change to the DNA of an organism at any point may well 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. 6Apart 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 being made to design genetically engineered trees with reduced levels of lignin, in order 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)
 
As 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) 

Oilseed rape, genetically engineered by Monsanto to have higher levels of pro-vitamin A, also a significantly decreased level of vitamin E, and an altered fatty acid composition.(4) 

When researchers in the US compared the levels of phytoestrogens (hormone-like substances in plants) between conventional soybeans, and genetically engineered soybeans treated with Monsanto's herbicide 'Roundup', they found that the phytoestrogen levels in the GE soybeans were 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) 

5. Inadequate safety testing of genetically engineered (GE) food

Many people became aware of 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% 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, GM and non-GM, 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 criterion for food safety. Genetically engineered 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 published a policy statement whichstated 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 ". genetically modified 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) 


6. GE products on the market

By December 1998, the following genetically engineered products had received approval in the US: herbicide-resistant canola (oilseed rape), radicchio, maize, cotton, and soybeans; insect-resistant maize, cotton and potatoes; virus-resistant papaya, potato and 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 genetically engineered growth hormone (rBST/rBGH) designed to boost milk production in dairy cows.(1) 

Sixteen genetically engineered crops had been granted marketing approval in the EU by December 1998.(2) Of these, the only ones to have received unanimous approval by all the member states were two varieties of genetically engineered carnation: one with 'improved vase life', and one with altered colouring. All the other approvals have been disputed. Products officially approved as 'safe' have subsequently been banned in certain countries, while the introduction of many of the food crops which have been approved are now subject to delays as a result of 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, and oilseed rape; and insect- resistant maize.(3) The genetically engineered ingredients already in European shops include soybeans and maize. 

"Within five years-and certainly within ten-some 90-95 per cent of plant-derived food material in the United States will come from genetically engineered techniques." 

-Val Giddings, Vice President for Food and Agriculture of the Biotechnology Industry Organisation (4)

Most of the genetically engineered crops already on the market have been designed to be resistant to 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. An example of this is the attempt to engineer fruit and vegetables that ripen more slowly, allowing them to be transported over greater distances and kept for longer on supermarket shelves without losing the appearance of being fresh.(5) 

Other kinds of food on their 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',(hyperlink here to new section on Golden Rice) or 'low-fat crisps' from potatoes that have a higher starch content and less water, so can be fried in less oil.(6) 


7. Public concern

With few exceptions, governments in industrialised countries have been keen to promote genetically engineered food. Numerous surveys, however, 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 attempts by both government and industry to 'educate' the public, opposition to genetic engineering has continued 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 genetically engineered food is safe or not, but the fact 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 genetically engineered 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 have been released into the environment they may transfer their characteristics to other organisms and can never be recalled or contained. 

8. Labelling

When people began to realise they were eating genetically engineered food without their knowledge or consent, there were immediate calls for mandatory segregation and labelling.(1) In May 1998, however, Codex Alimentarius, the UN body responsible for establishing international rules on food policy, rejected these demands in favour of a much more limited labelling regime that suited the food and genetic engineering industries.(2) 

The concept of 'substantial equivalence' was used to argue that genetically engineered food was 'equivalent' to food produced by any 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 also concerned that segregation would need to be introduced in order to implement labelling schemes. 

In 1998 the EU, having been under sustained pressure from the public, introduced a partial labelling scheme which 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 genetically engineered DNA would be destroyed when food is 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 have been 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 fact that the labelling regime introduced in Europe was widely criticised and regarded as inadequate, the United States government was adamant that there should 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 genetically engineered food could disrupt $4-5 billion in annual US agricultural exports.(6) And there is evidence that the United States government has been applying pressure on other countries to reject labelling regulations. A New Zealand cabinet document from 19th February '98, for example, 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 United States have told us that such an approach could impact negatively on the bilateral trade relationship and potentially end any chance of a New Zealand - United States Free Trade Agreement."(7) 

In spite of threats such as this, growing public concern about genetic engineering has forced more and 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 and 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 the spring of '98, the US Department of Agriculture put forward legislation which 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) 

9. 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 per cent of the market in transgenic seeds. These five corporations also accounted for 60 per cent of the global pesticide market and 23 per cent 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, it announced that it was to join its pharmaceutical wing with Pharmacia-Upjohn in a $27 billion merger; Monsanto's agricultural wing was now 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 genetically engineered 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) 

40 per cent of US vegetable seeds come from a single source.(10) The top five vegetable seed companies control 75 per cent 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 per cent 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 which is attractive to the industry. 

In a document leaked to Greenpeace, PR 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, for one, 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, for example, has been granted UK £1 million (with a similar amount being contributed by the industry) to promote the sales of genetically engineered 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) 

10. 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 began to be 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, genetically engineered 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) 


11. The Potential For Allergic reactions

In the United States, a 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 thus become dangerous for him or her 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 which 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. 

Source: http://archive.greenpeace.org