GE
Crops in Mexico
Spring
2005
On February 15, the Mexican government voted to legalize genetically engineered (GE) crops. Up until now, GE crops have been banned in the country in order to keep GE contamination away from what is the world’s most diverse, important, and pure collection of maize (corn) varieties.
Although surveys reveal the vast majority of Mexican citizens oppose the legalization of GE crops, intense pressure from the U.S. eventually won over. Monsanto, which owns the patents and distribution rights to 91% of GE seeds in the world, is now one of the leading advertisers in Mexico, second only to Coca-Cola.
— http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/mexicoapprove022805.cfm
The biotech industry has developed genetically engineered (GE or GMO) versions of corn and soybeans called pharma crops that produce hormones, vaccines, research chemicals, and industrial products. Seven pharma crop products are already on the market. USDA has approved four applications in Georgia.
In a new Union of Concerned Scientists report, an independent panel of agricultural experts concludes that the food supply cannot be protected from contamination by pharma crops within the current food production system. Based on their analysis, UCS recommends immediately halting outdoor production of pharma food crops and exploring alternatives for pharmaceutical production...
In a related report, The Campaign for a GMO-Free Europe, sponsored by Friends of the Earth, has collected GMO-free declarations from 3500 areas... in 26 European nations. In addition, regional and local authorities are petitioning the European Commission for the right to decide whether GMOs can be grown in their areas, a right not granted under current law. Meanwhile, the European Commission is under pressure from the US and the World Trade Organization to keep European markets for GMOs open.
— “A Growing Concern”- 3/30/05, http://www.ucusa.org
Biotech
on the Move
Winter
2004/05
Despite public opposition and rejection by overseas markets, virus-spliced Genetically Engineered (GE) papayas have been planted on papaya plantations across Hawaii. Consumers and farmers from across the islands are calling for the creation of a GE-Free zone. Angry farmers and gardeners dumped 20 trash bins of contaminated papayas at the Univ. of Hawaii-Hilo in protest.
A few weeks later, scientists in Oregon found that pollen from Monsanto’s GE herbicide-tolerant bentgrass had cross-pollinated with natural bentgrass 13 miles away. Monsanto developed the Roundup Ready bentgrass for golf courses, and eventually private lawns.
Across the US, Canada and Mexico, organic, indigenous, and non-GE farmers report increasing contamination of their crops by GE corn, canola, cotton, and soybean varieties. In China, authorities admitted that they had haphazardly planted over a million GE trees in the open environment, with no way to monitor their impact on birds, animals, related tree species, and humans (possible allergenic pollen drift).
Scientists recently condemned the Bush administration for failing to release a study that showed that US dumping of millions of tons of GE corn every year in Mexico is causing widespread contamination of the nation’s irreplaceable traditional maize varieties. Now a thousand organic farmers in Canada are suing Monsanto and Aventis (Bayer), while local activists in several dozen counties and states across the US are gearing up for legislative efforts to ban GE crops.
Meanwhile prominent scientists point out that gene-splicing is scientifically outmoded; the newest way is to use gene mapping to mark desirable gene sequences in plants, which can then be produced through conventional cross-breeding. Unfortunately, the new varieties would not then be patentable, so Monsanto and the other gene giants are not interested.
— “BioDemocracy vs. Biotechnology”, Organic View, Autumn 2004, Organic Consumers Association, www.organicconsumers.org
Biotech
Foods
Fall
2003
More than a year ago, July 2002, a UK study at Newcastle University fed a hamburger made with genetically modified herbicide-enhanced soy to a group of volunteers and then tested the human gut bacteria.
This was the first trial on the effects of GM (genetically modified) foods on our bodies after years of this food being on the market. Three of the seven samples from gastrointestinal tracts revealed that the bacteria in the gut had taken on the herbicide resistant gene. This after only one meal!
There have been no studies on long-term effects and no studies to date on how children, with their rapid growth patterns, may alter their DNA with these foods. In addition, biotech companies are using antibiotic resistant marker genes to identify the GM cells during development. Some scientists believe that eating GM foods with these marker genes could encourage human’s natural bacteria to develop antibiotic resistance.
If this UK study showed such a change in the gut after only one meal, why are long- term studies not insisted on by the FDA? Could it be because the biotech companies such as Monsanto make millions off this technology? They take the attitude that it is safe until proven unsafe. What is the connection between Monsanto et al and the FDA?
This past June, President Bush accused the European Union of aggravating the risk of famine in Africa because they refuse to allow GM seeds and foods. The European Commission rejected the accusation and said they have done far more to feed the world’s poor than the US. “We have a much better record than the United States — we provide seven times more aid — and we do not tie our aid to our policy.”
The environmental group Friends of the Earth said Bush’s link of GM organisms to world hunger was “absolutely immoral.”
It sounds like one more attempt by this administration to open the markets to GM foods for the benefit of corporations — regardless of the end results to human health.
— Elizabeth Patsis and Greenpeace, 17 July 2002.
Genetic
Engineering Faulty
Winter
2001/2
A new report asserts that the scientific theory underpinning the genetic engineering (GE) industry is dangerously outdated and wrong. The author, Dr. Barry Commoner of Queens College, City University of New York, says, “The genetically engineered crops now being grown represent a massive uncontrolled experiment whose outcome is inherently unpredictable. The results could be catastrophic.”
At present, 68% of US soybean acreage, 26% of our corn acreage, and more than 69% of our cotton acreage have been genet- ically engineered.
The safety assurances of the GE industry are based on the scientific premise that one gene controls one characteristic. If this is true, then removing a gene from one species and inserting it into a new species will give the new species one new characteristic, no more and no less.
Unfortunately the theory is now known to be wrong.
1) Genes are composed of segments of DNA, a long molecule coiled up within each cell’s nucleus.
2) The 40-year old theory of Francis Crick says that DNA strictly controls the production of RNA which in turn strictly controls the creation of proteins which give rise to specific inherited characteristics. Because DNA is the same in all creatures, this theory says that a gene will produce a particular protein (and a particular characteristic) no matter what species it finds itself in — thus making it possible for the GE corporations to claim that inserting genes from one species to another will not lead to any surprises or dangerous side effects.
3) It was, of all things, the Human Genome project that revealed most starkly that Crick’s theory was wrong. There are about 100,000 different proteins in a human and, if Crick were right, there should be 100,000 genes to produce these proteins. However, the Human Genome Project announced last February that humans have only about 30,000 genes. Thus there must be something more than mere genes controlling the development of proteins and the resulting characteristics.
4) Actually, scientists had known for many years that after DNA creates RNA, the RNA can split into several parts, giving rise to several different proteins and several different characteristics.
5) As cells split and reproduce themselves, their DNA molecule also reproduces itself, but sometimes errors occur. Special proteins repair these errors of reproduction, so genetic inheritance is not simply a matter of genes — it’s a matter of interaction between genes and repair proteins. Will these complex interactions always work reliably and identically when a gene is placed into the entirely new environment of a different species?
6) Proteins function as they do because of two characteristics: they have a specific chemical (molecular) make-up, and they are physically folded into a particular shape. The Crick theory assumes that a particular gene always give rise to a single protein that is chemically identical and is identically folded. However, scientists now know that proteins get folded in a particular way by the presence of additional “chaperone” proteins. More protein-gene interactions!
7) Furthermore, during the 1980s, in searching for the causes of fatal “mad cow” disease, scientists made the startling discovery that some proteins can reproduce themselves without involving any DNA whatever — impossible according to the Crick theory. These proteins are now called “prions” and, as Dr. Commoner points out, they reveal that processes far removed from the Crick theory are at work in molecular genetics and can give rise to fatal disease.
Thus the basic theory underlying genetic engineering of crops is quite wrong. Single genes are important, but they do not invariably give rise to a single characteristic in an organism. A gene’s action is modified by alternative splicing, by proteins that repair errors in reproduction, and by the chaperones that fold the final protein into its active shape.
In nature, such a system works reliably within a species because it has been tested and refined for thousands of years. But when a single gene is removed from its familiar surroundings and transplanted into an alien species, the new host’s system is likely to be “disrupted in unspecific, imprecise, and inherently unpredictable ways,” the Commoner report concludes. In practice these disruptions are revealed by the vast number of failures that occur whenever a gene transplant is attempted.
Most ominously, the report points out, Monsanto Corporation acknowledged in 2000 that its genetically modified soybeans contained some extra fragments of a transferred gene. Despite this, the company announced that it expected “no new proteins” to appear in the GE soybeans. Then during 2001, Belgian researchers announced that the soybean’s new DNA had been scrambled during the insertion of the new gene. “The abnormal DNA was large enough to produce a new protein, a potentially harmful protein,” Dr. Commoner concludes.
Thus genetically engineered crops threaten not only the agricultural systems and the cultural survival of all indigenous people, but also the food security and safety of all people everywhere.
— Rachel’s Environment & Health News #743, Jan. 31, 2002, PO Box 5036, Annapolis MD 21403, erf@rachel.org
Altered
Corn
Fall
2001
Genetically altered plants are now everywhere in the US, accounting for 68% of this year’s soybean crop and 64% of cotton. But farmers are feeling uneasy. Between 1996 and 1999, grain prices fell as exports to Europe dropped by $2 billion.
Despite government approval, consumers were wary and farmers worry since StarLink corn, less than 1% of last year’s crop, contaminated nearly half the total harvest. Japan and South Korea, biggest foreign buyers of US corn, rejected contaminated shipments. Export markets continue to suffer. Europe is still importing millions of tons of corn, but not from the US.
The American Corn Growers Association (ACGA) is encouraging its 14,000 members to question their planting decisions. Some farmers are concerned over resistant strains of insects and “super weeds.” The president of the National Family Farm Coalition (NFFC) is also bothered by the consolidation of seed and chemical companies. “We’re losing not only our international markets but the confidence of US consumers.”
In 1999, more than 25 farm groups, including the NFFC, developed a “Farmers’ Declaration on Genetic Engineering in Agriculture,” which holds biotech companies liable for GMO-related problems, and supports consumers’ rights to GMO-free food. They plan a series of regional seminars this winter.
Wheat growers, spooked by StarLink, sought laws in several states for a moratorium on Roundup Ready wheat, planned by Monsanto for 2005. The bill passed the South Dakota House but Monsanto got it killed in the Senate, as well as in Montana. Canada is now debating whether to buy the new wheat. “It’s our livelihood on the line if this thing fails. For Monsanto it’s just an experiment,” said a farmer in North Dakota.
— E Magazine Nov/Dec 2001, www.emagazine.com, National Family Farms Coalition 202-543-5675, www.nffc.net.
Censored
News
Winter
2000/1
Two Florida news reporters lost their jobs for trying to tell the truth about recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH), the genetically engineered product that causes dairy cows to produce more milk. What they uncovered would make many Americans think twice before drinking a glass of milk.
Their original report never aired, their dismissal from Fox was never in the media spotlight, and their lawsuit encountered a virtual media blackout. In the end justice was served in the courtroom, but the facts about rBGH have yet to be widely exposed.
Jane Akre and Steve Wilson were hired by Fox 13 in Tampa, Florida, to file hard-hitting investigative reports. They found rBGH results in elevated levels of a hormone that has known links to cancer and childhood developmental diseases.
One day before the report was scheduled to run, Monsanto, the hormone’s manufacturer, threatened Fox TV with “dire consequences” if the story aired. Fox forced the reporters to rewrite the story to make it friendlier toward Monsanto. After more than 70 rewrites, the news station, fearful of a lawsuit, told Akre and Wilson that the story was still not watered down enough. The reporters were threatened, offered a bribe, and ultimately fired.
Rather than back down, they sought damages under a Florida whistle-blower’s law. The trial, which lasted five weeks, read like a script for a TV drama. Walter Cronkite and Ralph Nader testified on their behalf, but still failed to attract any media attention to cover the story.
The jury awarded Jane Akre with $425,000 in damages, but failed to find for Steve Wilson due to a technicality involving jury instruction. Wilson and Fox have both filed appeals. Those appeals are still dragging on and Jane Akre has received no money. For updates, see the website www.foxbghsuit.com.
-- Sevananda Co-Options, March 2001, reprinted from People’s Food Co-op, Ann Arbor, MI.
Starlink
Bailout
Winter
2000/1
In the first federal bailout related to genetically engineered food, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced recently that it will buy as many as 400,000 bags of corn seed that contain the genetically modified (GM) corn variety StarLink.
Using up to $20 million in funds normally lent to farmers facing natural disasters, the government will compensate seed companies for corn that was inadvertently contaminated with StarLink, most likely through the drift of pollen from other cornfields.
StarLink has not been approved for human consumption, but the corn has still made its way into food products, prompting nationwide recalls of taco shells and other products. Early in March, Greenpeace said StarLink has been found in frozen corn dogs made by Kellogg’s.
The U.S. EPA said it would no longer approve GM products for use as animal feed unless they were also safe for human consumption.
-- Marc Kaufman, Washington Post, March 8 2001, www.gristmagazine.com/grist/dogood/food.stm#frankenfoods
Biotech:
Feed or Greed?
Winter
1999/2000
The debate over biotech foods (aka GM for genetically modified or GE for genetically engineered) is not over. On Feb. 28, 400 science and health experts gathered in Edinburgh, Scotland, for a three-day conference organized by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
Some scientists say GM foods are completely safe and are the only way to feed the hungry world population. Others say inserting genes to withstand pesticides or insects is potentially dangerous to the environment and to human health.
UK Prime Minister Tony Blair reversed himself last week when he acknowledged that there was “potential for harm” as well as benefit from GM crops and foods. Last year Blair accused pressure groups of being “irrational” but not this year.
Following the adoption of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety in Montreal in January, and the European Commission’s announcement on plans for a European Food Safety Agency, this is one more step in the international debate on GM foods.
Germany recently prevented approval for a GM maize variety. Swiss-based Novartis, which developed the insect-resistant “Bt 176” strain, is considering a legal challenge.
Greenpeace activists publicized the meeting by boarding a freighter due to deliver 60,000 tons of US commodity soybeans, an unknown proportion of which is genetically modified, to Liverpool. Five of the activists were arrested early on Feb. 28. The cargo is owned by Cargill.
ens.lycos.com/ens/feb2000/2000L02-28-05.html
Today over 30 different GE fruits and vegetables are on the market, mostly varieties of soybeans, corn, potatoes, tomatoes and squash. These transgenic crops grow on more than 50 million acres in the US. In 1998, an estimated 40% of the soybean crops and 30% of the corn crop were GE.
Because these two products are widely used in processed foods, up to 70% of the processed foods lining our supermarket shelves including infant formula, soda, corn or potato chips, margarine, ice cream, bread and ready-made meals could contain GE components, with no label to distinguish them.
In the research pipeline are bruise-resistant potatoes with genes from wax moths, corn with firefly genes, and potatoes with genes from a chicken. Consumer advocates worry that GE organisms have not been safely tested over the long term. Health experts warn that GE foods could lead to increased allergies as new proteins from organisms never before eaten as food are introduced into human and animal food chains. This is exactly what happened in 1998 when a Brazil nut gene was introduced into soybeans to increase the protein content of animal feed.
In plants, antibiotic-resistant genes are used as ³markers² that indicate which cells have taken up foreign genes. Though they have no further use, the antibiotic-resistant genes remain in the plant tissue and could be passed onto bacteria in the intestinal tracts of humans and animals, rendering antibiotics ineffective.
Once ³biological pollution² starts, there is no stopping it. Lab researchers at Cornell University found that insect-resistant corn genetically engineered with the toxin Bt could be killing the Monarch butterfly. Field studies at Iowa State U showed similar results. Swiss researchers found that Bt crops affect beneficial predators like lacewings and ladybugs that eat insects that feed on GE plants.
If you own shares of chemical companies (DuPont, Dow, American Home Products, Monsanto), food processing companies (Philip Morris or Coca-Cola), or restaurant chains (McDonald¹s or Pepsi), you can put these shares to work for the environment. Contact Michelle Chan-Fishel at mchan@foe.org or call 202-783-7400 ext. 242.
Friends of the Earth, Summer 1999, www.foe.org/safefood. Also you can find organic food at Publix, Harry’s, Whole Foods, Food Fare, or the Higher Ground food co-op that meets in Cornelia. Call ACE for information.
