Are GE Crops a Disaster Waiting to Happen?

By Ron Poitras — August 2003

It is distressing to see The Ellsworth American running the self-serving propaganda of the biotech industry (Douglas R. Johnson — "Let Farmers Decide" Commentary - 7/24/03). Farmers should be able to decide what crops they plant, but the potential impact from GE (genetically engineered) crops extends way beyond the farmers' fields. What farmers and the communities they live in need is much better information based on unbiased research to make anything approaching an accurate assessment of the merits of genetically engineered crops. However, technology like GE crops is typically informed primarily by research funded by corporations in a hurry to commercialize products.

There is a great deal at stake in this fight over biotechnology, and it has nothing to do with alleviating hunger, increasing yields or reducing pesticide use. The "Big Five" biotech companies - Monsanto, Dupont, Syngenta, Dow Chemical and Aventis - have invested billions of dollars in research and development, and the US Government has spent billions in subsidies to these agri-business giants. Out of 1085 biotech patents, the Big Five control 937. The biotech industry argues that GE crops represent the new "green revolution" that will allow countries to feed the growing world population. But the U.S. Department of Agriculture's own Economic Research Service found that crop yields were no higher for GE crops than they are for regular crops, and GE crops won't grow just anywhere. They were created for huge American super farms, not the diversified conditions that characterize agriculture in most places. In addition GE seeds cost more, and it is highly unlikely that cash-strapped farmers will be able to afford them.

GE crops could be "a disaster waiting to happen" warns a recent report issued by the Independent Science Panel, a British led group of dozens of prominent scientists from seven countries that reviewed available primary and secondary sources on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) and produced "The Case for a GM-Free Sustainable World". This report is a complete catalogue of evidence on the known problems and hazards of GM crops and also makes the case that better ways are readily available to produce food sustainably without this technology and without using toxic pesticides and herbicides. The report was recently released as part of the ongoing debate over GE crops in the UK, and is available at: http://www.indsp.org/ISPreportSummary.php.

Here are a few highlights:

• There is insufficient research into the potential allergic effects and toxicity of genetically engineered foods. For example 'Bt' proteins which are incorporated into 25 per cent of all GE crops worldwide are potent allergens for humans and other mammals. A July 1999 study of Ohio crop pickers and handlers shows that Bt "can provoke immunological changes indicative of a developing allergy. With long-term exposure, affected individuals may develop asthma or other serious allergic reactions."
  
  
• Genetic engineers use antibiotic "markers" in almost every GM organism to indicate that the organism has been successfully engineered. These markers will undoubtedly play a role in the diminishing efficacy of antibiotics against diseases.
  
  
• Scientists warn that once the GM organisms and their altered genes are released into nature, they may spread widely. Poisons, mutagens, and carcinogens might be created in harmful concentrations.
  
  
• Scientists believe GM crops may be deadly to wildlife (i.e. the Monarch butterfly) and may result in increased pesticide pollution and soil damage, genetic contamination of the environment, and risks to biodiversity.
  
  
• Tobacco plants were genetically engineered to produce the Gamma-linoleic acid. Instead the plant unexpectedly mainly produced the toxic octadecatetraenic acid. This substance does not exist in the natural tobacco plant. (Reddy SA, Thomas TL. Nature Biotechnology, vol. 14, Sid 639-642, May 1996).
  
  
• When a yeast was manipulated for increased fermentation there was an unexpected production of a metabolite (methyl-glyoxal) in toxic and mutagenic concentrations. (Inose, T. Murata, K. Int. J. Food Science Tech. 30: 141-146, 1995).
  
  
• When a gene from the Brazil nut was inserted into a soybean it appeared that it unexpectedly caused strong allergic reactions in people allergic to nuts who never had any problems formerly in eating soy products. (Nordlee, J.A. et al. The New England Journal of Medicine 14: 688-728, 1996).

Many unknowns attend this technology. These unknowns beg more thorough investigation. Long-term (and unbiased) research is needed to make anything approaching an accurate assessment. While such investigation does not appear forthcoming at this juncture, there is enough already known about GE crops to put its safety in doubt. As with any new technology, the onus should be on the proponents to prove safety...not as Mr. Johnson suggests, for the critics to prove danger.

Ron Poitras coordinates the Buy Local, Eat Fresh delivery service, a program of the Hancock County Locally Grown Foods Project, and lives in Surry.