================== Electronic Edition ==================
RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH NEWS #638
February 18, 1999
HEADLINES:
AGAINST THE GRAIN, PART 2
==========
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@rachel.org
==========
All back issues are available by E-mail: send E-mail to
info@rachel.org with the single word HELP in the message.
Back issues are also available from http://www.rachel.org/
To start your own free subscription, send E-mail to
listserv@rachel.org with the words
SUBSCRIBE RACHEL-NEWS YOUR NAME in the message.
=================================================
AGAINST THE GRAIN, PART 2
The corporations that are introducing genetically modified crops
into the global ecosystem want you to think of genetic engineering
as a well-understood science similar to laparascopic surgery.
Indeed, the phrase "genetic engineering" gives the impression that
moving genes from one organism to another is as straightforward as
designing a rocket or a TV set. This is not the case.
Basically, a plant's genome (all of its genes, taken together) is
a black box. Genetic engineering takes a gene from one black box
and forces it into a second black box (the recipient plant),
hoping that the new gene will "take." Most of the time, the
experiment fails.[1] Once in a few thousand tries, the foreign
gene embeds itself in the recipient plant's genome and the
newly-modified plant gains the desired trait. But that is all the
technicians know. They have no idea where in the receiving plant's
genome the new gene has found a home. This fundamental ignorance,
combined with the speed and scale at which modified organisms are
being released into the global ecosystem, raises a host of
questions of safety for the future of agriculture, for the
environment, and for human health.
* To begin with, genes don't necessarily control a single
trait. A gene may control several different traits in a
plant. Without careful study, plants with undesirable
characteristics may be released into the global ecosystem.
And biotechnology is not like a chemical spill that can be
mopped up -- once you release a new gene sequence into
nature, your grandchildren are going to be living with it
because there's no taking it back.
* How a gene affects a plant depends upon the environment. The
same gene can have different effects, depending on the
environment in which the new plant is growing.[2] What
appears predictable and safe after a few years of observation
of a small test plot may turn out to have quite different
consequences when introduced into millions of acres of
croplands in the U.S. and elsewhere, where conditions vary
widely.
* Does the new gene destabilize the entire plant genome in some
unforeseen way, leading one day to problems in that crop?
Only time will tell.
* Genes can travel to nearby, related plants on their own. This
is called gene flow. In 1996 gene flow was discovered to be
much more common that previously thought.[3]
According to SCIENCE magazine, many ecologists say it is only
a matter of time before an engineered gene makes the leap to
a weedy species, this creating a new weed or invigorating an
old one. "It will probably happen in far less than 1% of the
products," warns ecological geneticist Norm Ellstrand of the
University of California at Riverside, "but within 10 years
we will have a moderate-to-large scale ecological or economic
catastrophe, because there will be so many [genetically
modified] products being released,"[3] Ellstrand predicts. It
is worth noting that U.S. farmers already spend $4.3 billion
purchasing 628 million pounds of herbicides (active
ingredients only) to control weeds.[4,pg.32]
The Congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA)
recommended that all genetically modified plants should be
considered non-indigenous exotic species, with the power to
disrupt ecosystems.[4,pg.29] Non-indigenous, introduced
species have provided great benefits to humanity (most of
U.S. agriculture relies on introduced species), but we also
should learn from kudzu, purple loosestrife, the gypsy moth,
the fire ant, and the boll weevil that exotic species can be
extremely disruptive and very expensive to control (if indeed
they can be controlled at all).
* A public health disaster was narrowly averted in 1996 when a
group of researchers tried to improve soybeans by giving them
a gene from the Brazil nut.[5] The goal was to improve the
nutritional value of soybeans by forcing them to produce more
methionine, an essential amino acid. The gene from the Brazil
nut was successfully transferred to soybeans. After this had
been accomplished, but before the soybeans were sold
commercially, independent researchers tested the soybeans to
see if it would cause allergic reactions in people. Many
people are allergic to nuts, particularly Brazil nuts. In
some people, allergic reaction to Brazil nuts is swift and
fatal.
A series of laboratory tests on humans confirmed that the
genetically modified soybeans did provoke Brazil-nut allergy
in humans. They could not feed the genetically modified
soybeans to people for fear of killing them, but through
scratch tests on skin, they confirmed unequivocally that
people allergic to Brazil nuts were allergic to the modified
soybeans. In discussing their findings in the NEW ENGLAND
JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, the researchers pointed out that tests
on laboratory animals will not necessarily discover allergic
reactions to genetically modified organisms. Only tests on
humans will suffice.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) only requires testing
for allergic reactions if a gene is being taken from a source
that is already known to cause allergic reactions in humans.
Many genes are being taken now from bacteria and other
life-forms whose allergenicity is entirely unknown, so
federal regulations require no allergy testing in these
cases. This reduces regulatory costs for the corporations,
but leaves the public unprotected.
* Crops are being genetically modified chiefly as a way to sell
more pesticides. [See REHW #637.] In some cases, the modified
crops change the pesticides themselves, giving them new
toxicity. The herbicide bromoxynil falls into this
category.[1,pg.41] Bromoxynil is already recognized by U.S.
EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] as a possible
carcinogen and as a teratogen (i.e., it causes birth
defects). Calgene (now owned by Monsanto) developed a strain
of cotton plants (called BXN Cotton) that can withstand
direct spraying with bromoxynil. Unfortunately, the
bromoxynil-resistant gene in cotton modifies the bromoxynil,
turning it into a chemical byproduct called DBHA, which is at
least as toxic as bromoxynil itself.
Although humans do not eat cotton, traditional silage for
cattle contains up to 50% cotton slash, gin mill leavings,
and cotton debris. Both bromoxynil and DBHA are fat-soluble,
so they can accumulate in the fat of animals. Therefore, it
is likely that DBHA will make its way into the human food
chain through meat. Furthermore, cotton seed oil is widely
used as a direct human food and as a cooking additive. In
licensing bromoxynil for use on Monsanto's genetically
modified BXN Cotton, EPA conducted a risk assessment that
assumed bromoxynil and DBHA had no way to enter the human
food chain. Lastly, cotton dust -- the cause of brown lung
disease -- will now carry the added hazard of bromoxynil and
DBHA, another danger that EPA has disregarded. Thus genetic
engineering -- which is being promoted as a technology that
will reduce the perils of pesticides -- will in some
instances increase them.
In rats and in rabbits, bromoxynil causes serious birth
defects, including changes in the bones of the spine and
skull, and hydrocephaly ("water on the brain"). These birth
defects appear in offspring at doses of bromoxynil that are
not toxic to the mother. Despite these findings, and despite
a law (the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996) that
explicity gives EPA the power to reduce exposure standards to
protect infants, EPA in 1997 declined to require a special
safety factor to protect children from bromoxynil.
Lastly, when EPA added up the cancer-causing potential of
bromoxynil, they found it to be 2.7 per million, and they
promptly declared this to be "well within" the
one-in-a-million regulatory limit.[1,pg.46] Is 2.7 less than
one?
By all appearances, EPA is more interested in protecting
Monsanto's investment in this new technology than in
protecting public health.
* Because genetically-engineered soybeans will be doused with
increased quantities of herbicides, such as Roundup
(glyphosate), soybeans and soy products will carry increased
chemical residues. Infants who must be reared on soy milk,
because they cannot tolerate lactose in regular milk, will be
at special hazard.
* Crops that are genetically modified to resist herbicides
detoxify the herbicides by producing proteins, which will be
incorporated into our food with unknown results.[1,pg.143]
* When crops are genetically modified to incorporate the
naturally-occurring Bt toxin into their cells (see REHW
#636), those Bt toxins will be incorporated into foods made
from those crops. What will be the effect of these toxins and
gene products on the bacteria and other organisms (the
so-called microflora) that live in the human digestive tract?
Time will tell.
* The "life sciences" companies have big plans for turning
agricultural crops into "factories" for producing
pharmaceuticals and specialty chemicals in open fields. They
plan to manufacture vaccines, drugs, detergents, enzymes and
other chemicals by putting the right genes into the right
plants.
The net effect of all this will be to expose soil insects and
microorganisms, foraging and burrowing animals, seed-eating
birds, and a myriad of other non-target organisms to these
chemicals and to the gene products that make them. The Union
of Concerned Scientists says, "Herbivores will consume the
chemicals as they feed on plants. Soil microbes, insects, and
worms will be exposed as they degrade plant debris. Aquatic
organisms will confront the drugs and chemicals washed into
streams, lakes, and rivers from fields."[4,pg.6]
* Most fundamentally, genetically-engineered crops substitute
human wisdom for the wisdom of nature. As
genetically-engineered crops are planted on tens of millions
of acres, the diversity of our agricultural systems is being
further diminished. Do we know enough to select the "right"
combination of genes to assure the stable, long-term yield of
our agricultural systems? Our recent experiences with PCBs,
CFCs, DDT, Agent Orange, and global warming should give us
pause. Genetic engineering is by far the most powerful
technology humans have ever discovered, and it is being
deployed by the same corporations that, historically, have
produced one large-scale calamity after another. Is there any
good reason to think things will be different this time?
--Peter Montague (National Writers Union, UAW Local 1981/AFL-CIO)
----------
1. Marc Lappe and Britt Bailey, Against The Grain; Biotechnology
And The Corporate Takeover Of Your Food [ISBN 1567511503]
(Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1998). Available from
Common Courage Press, P.O. Box 207, Monroe, ME 04951. Tel.
(207) 525-0900 or (800) 497-3207.
2. Craig Holdrege, GENETICS AND THE MANIPULATION OF LIFE: THE
FORGOTTEN FACTOR OF CONTEXT (Hudson, N.Y.: Lindisfarne Press,
1996). ISBN 0-940262-77-0. Available from Lindisfarne Press,
RR4 Box 94 A-1, Hudson, NY 12534.
3. James Kling, "Could Transgenic Supercrops One Day Breed
Superweeds?" SCIENCE Vol. 274 (October 11, 1996), pgs.
180-181.
4. Jane Rissler and Margaret Mellon, THE ECOLOGICAL RISKS OF
ENGINEERED CROPS (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1996).
5. Julie A. Nordlee and others, "Identification of a Brazil-nut
Allergen in Transgenic Soybeans," NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF
MEDICINE Vol. 334, No. 11 (March 14, 1996), pgs. 688-692.
Descriptor terms: agriculture; biotechnology; genetic engineering;
regulation; epa; food safety; food security; pesticides; bt;
glyphosate; roundup; monsanto; bromoxynil; dbha; herbicides;
allergens; bxn cotton; soybeans;
################################################################
Rachel's Environment & Health Weekly is a
publication of the Environmental Research
Foundation, P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD
21403. Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet:
erf@rachel.org. Back issues available by
E-mail; to get instructions, send E-mail to
INFO@rachel.org with the single word HELP in
the message. Subscriptions are free. To
subscribe, E-mail the words SUBSCRIBE
RACHEL-NEWS YOUR NAME to:
listserv@rachel.org NOTICE: Environmental
Research Foundation provides this electronic
version of RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH
NEWS free of charge even though it costs our
organization considerable time and money to
produce it. We would like to continue to
provide this service free. You could help by
making a tax-deductible contribution (anything
you can afford, whether $5.00 or $500.00).
Please send your tax-deductible contribution
to: Environmental Research Foundation, P.O.
Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403-7036. Please do
not send credit card information via E-mail.
For further information about making
tax-deductible contributions to E.R.F. by
credit card please phone us toll free at
1-888-2RACHEL.
--Peter Montague, Editor
################################################################