What is Genetic Engineering? Genetic engineering (GE) is a new technology that involves the manipulation
of genes. Unlike traditional hybridization techniques that have been used for
centuries, genetic engineering allows researchers to break down the species
boundaries set up by millions of years of evolution. Never before was it possible
to transfer genes from animals to plants or from bacteria to humans. By combining
the genes of unrelated species, permanently altering their genetic codes, novel
organisms are created that will pass the genetic changes onto their offspring
through heredity. There are many unanswered questions about the effects that
genetic engineering could have on the health and ecology of our world once released
into the environment.
CCOF Has a History of Working to Protect Farmers from GE Contamination.
For years CCOF has opposed the commercialization of GE crops because of the
threat they pose to organic and non-organic growers. CCOF has worked hard to
ensure that the regulations adhered to by growers throughout California and
the rest of the country prohibit the use of genetically engineered products
in organic production. The USDA’s National Organic Program Final Rule
classifies genetically modified products as an “excluded method”
in organic production.(i) CCOF played an instrumental role in ensuring that
GMOs were excluded from the Final Rule when it was crafted and written into
law.
Economic, Environmental, and Public Health Considerations for Growing
Genetically Engineered Crops
GE crops impact beneficial insects and other non-target species.
Increased mortality rates in Monarch butterfly larvae have been shown
to occur when fed genetically engineered Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis)
pollen.(ii)
Giroux et al. reported that ladybugs, which prey on the Colorado potato
beetle, consumed fewer potato beetle eggs when the potatoes had high levels
of Bt toxin.(iii)
In work conducted at the Swiss Federal Research Station for Agroecology
and Agriculture, Hilbeck et al. reported that lacewing larvae reared on
prey that were fed Bt-producing corn took longer to develop and had a
strikingly elevated mortality rate.(iv)
Research in Ohio on genetically engineered potatoes found natural enemies
reduced to such low levels that aphid outbreaks occurred.(v)
Pests resistant to chemicals or pesticides are likely to develop
with GE agriculture.
Recently an herbicide-tolerant canola plant was discovered that cross-pollinates
with a related weed.(vi) This could mean, among other results, that weeds
will eventually emerge that are herbicide-resistant, requiring more toxic
chemicals to get rid of them.
A study published in 1999 raises concern that insects may develop resistance
to moderate dose Bt corn, potentially undercutting the current strategy
recommended to growers by the USDA to avoid pest resistance.(vii)
The current reliance on just a few broad-spectrum herbicides makes it
likely that resistance will develop even faster. Already canola weeds resistant
to three herbicides have been found in a field in northern Alberta, Canada.(viii)
Genetic pollution is already affecting organic and non-organic growers.
USDA has admitted that genetically engineered seeds may have moved
outside of field test sites due to animal dispersal.(ix) No published
studies have examined the extent of the ecological consequences of this
impact on natural populations.(x) Yet the potential for economic harm
for farmers of genetic pollution are already real and severe.(xi)
In September 2000, taco shells sold in supermarkets were contaminated
with a variety of GE corn (StarLink) engineered with tolerance to glyphosate
and to express the pest toxin Bt.(xii) The GE corn was approved for use
in animal feed only, due to EPA concerns about possible human allergic
reactions to the problem. Although it was grown on less than 0.5 % of
all U.S. corn acres, more than 300 food products were recalled as a result
of the contamination. Experts in Iowa estimated that approximately half
the state’s corn (roughly 1 billion bushels) could be contaminated.(xiii)
In September 2002, USDA discovered a Prodigene plot of pharmaceutical
corn growing near fields of non-organic corn. Fearing that gene flow from
the “pharm” corn (engineered to contain an experimental pig vaccine)
had contaminated the food corn, the agency ordered 155 acres destroyed.
Government regulators then checked its other fields and discovered that
volunteer “pharm” corn from a Nebraska field trial had contaminated
soybeans there, resulting in the quarantine and destruction of $3 million
worth of beans.(xiv)
In Hawaii, independent laboratory testing results issued in September
2004 found genetically modified organisms in papayas grown on organic
and non-organic farms. Contamination was also found in the stock of non-genetically
engineered seeds being sold commercially by the University of Hawaii.(xv)
GE crops and their effects on human health
A public health issue was narrowly averted when independent tests on
the GE soybean revealed that people allergic to Brazil nuts also reacted
to the engineered soybean.(xvi)
Many studies have shown that DNA does not always fully break down in
the digestive system.(xvii, xxviii) Gut bacteria can take up genes and
fragments of DNA (xix) which could potentially lead to the spread of antibiotic
resistance.
According to Salk Institute cell biologist David Schubert, the crude
and unpredictable nature of genetic engineering techniques could lead
to “the biosynthesis of molecules that are toxic, allergenic or
carcinogenic ... GM (genetically modified) food is not a safe option, given our current lack
of understanding of the consequences of recombinant technology.”(xx) Schubert and others recommend long-term animal feeding studies to
test for possible toxic and reproductive effects.
GM maize (StarLink corn) that had not been approved for human consumption by the US Food and Drug Administration was found in store-bought taco
shells distributed by Kraft Foods in September 2000.(xii)
Increased costs and liability to organic and non-organic farmers
A survey of farmers conducted in 2003 by the Organic Farming Research
Foundation showed that many organic farmers are incurring more costs to
grow their crops because they are having to pay for DNA tests or undertaking
more costly planting processes to ensure that they have not been contaminated
by genetically engineered crops.(xxi)
Federal Agencies: Inconsistent in Their Assessment of the Safety of
GE Crops The FDA states GMO crops are the same as traditional crops for all regulatory
purposes. But this policy is inconsistent with the views of many of their own
scientists, as well as other Federal government researchers.(xxii) The quotes
below highlight the concerns that many scientists are raising about the safety
of deregulated GMO crops.
FDA microbiologist Dr. Louis Pribyl stated: "There is a profound
difference between the types of unexpected effects from traditional breeding
and genetic engineering ...."(xxiii)
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."(xxiv)
Quote by Dr Suzanne Wuerthele, US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
toxicologist: "This technology is being promoted, in the face of concerns
by respectable scientists and in the face of data to the contrary, by the
very agencies which are supposed to be protecting human health and the environment.
The bottom line in my view is that we are confronted with the most powerful
technology the world has ever known, and it is being rapidly deployed with
almost no thought whatsoever to its consequences."(xxv)
CCOF Supports a Moratorium on the Propagation of GE crops until:
Adequate, accurate, peer-reviewed research assessing the risks GE crops pose to wildlife, human health, and soil ecology is required to be presented as part of the approval process for any proposed commercialization.
Contamination of organic and non-organic crops by GE crops is the liability of the patent owners and growers of these GE crops.
An adequate regulatory framework is in place to protect organic and non-organic farmers from GE contamination at all stages of the farming process:
Development of buffer zones that account for the full possibility of seed and pollen dispersal as estimated by scientific reports.
Protections are required to prevent pollen dispersal through insect and wind vectors.
Financial protection is guaranteed to the organic and non-organic growers who become contaminated by GE crops.
Rigorous precautions are in place throughout the food chain, including specialized mills, processing facilities, transportation systems, and distribution networks to maintain separation of GE materials
Labeling standards and requirements to identify GE content are in place for all the above operations but most especially on final product presented to the consumer.
An Invitation to Join Californians for Ge-Free Agriculture (CGFA)
CCOF is excited to be a founding member
of a new coalition working to prevent genetically engineered (GE) crops in California.
We are encouraging all of our members to get involved with this coalition and
lend support to the campaign.
Right now California is virtually free of genetic engineering (GE), with the
major exception of GE cotton grown in the Central Valley. In the next few years,
however, the industry hopes to commercialize a new generation of GE crops in
the state, including: Bayer's herbicide-tolerant rice; Ventria Bioscience's
pharmaceutical rice (with human genes); and, Monsanto's herbicide-tolerant strawberries,
lettuce and rice. Bayer's GE rice was recently approved by the federal government
and could be grown in California soon.
We must stop GE crops in order to continue being a world leader in organic
and sustainable agriculture. Californian farmers and consumers can lead the
way in the rejection of this dangerous technology and demand a different kind
of agriculture.
Please join the campaign today. You can find out more about Californians for
GE-Free Agriculture by visiting our website www.calgefree.org
and signing up for our volunteer network to receive updates and information
about getting involved.
Thanks for your support and interest.
Footnotes and References (i) USDA National Organic Program Final Rule. Section 205.105(e) (“Excluded
Methods” are defined under “Terms” in Section 205.2)
(ii) John E. Losey, Linda S. Rayor, and Maureen E. Carter. “Transgenic pollen
harms monarch larvae.” Nature. Vol. 399. May 20, 1999.
(iii) Giroux et al. “Bacteriological Insecticide M-ONE Effects on Predation
Efficiency and Mortality of Adult Coleomegilla maculata lengi (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae).”
Journal of Economic Entomology 87: 39-43. 1994.
(iv) Hilbeck A., Moar W.J., Pusztai-Carey M., Filippini A. and Bigler F., 1999.
Prey-mediated effects of Cry1Ab toxin and protoxin and Cry2A protoxin on the
predator Chrysoperla carnea. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata. 91 (2),
305-316.; Hilbeck, A., M. Baumgartner, P.M. Fried, F. Bigler. 1998a. Effects
of transgenic Bacillus thuringiensis corn-fed prey on mortality and development
time of immature Chrysoperla carnea (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae).
Environmental Entomology. 27: 480-487.; Hilbeck, A., W.J. Moar, M. Pusztai-Carey,
A. Filippini, and F. Bigler. 1998b. Toxicity of Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ab
toxin to the predator Chrysoperla carnea (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae). Environmental
Entomology. 27: 1255-1263.
(v) Hoy, C.W., J. Feldman, F. Gould, G.G. Kennedy, G. Reed, and J.A. Wyman. 1998.
Naturally occurring biological controls in genetically engineered crops. Pp.
185-205 in Conservation Biological Control, P. Barbosa, ed. New York: Academic
Press.
(vi) Laura Tangley. “Of Genes, Grain, and Grocers: The Risks and Realities
of Engineered Crops.” U.S. News and World Report. April 10, 2000.
(vii) F. Huang, et al. “Inheritance of resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis
toxin (Dipel ES) in the European corn borer.” Science. 284: 965-7. May
7, 1999.
(viii) Mary MacArthur. Triple-resistant canola weeds found in Alta. The Western
Producer. February 10, 2000.
(ix) Wrubel, R.P., Krimsky, S., and Wetzler, R.E. “Field Testing Transgenic
Plants.” Bioscience. Volume 42, Issue 4. April 1992.
(x) L.L. Wolfenbarger and P.R. Phifer. “The Ecological Risks and Benefits
of Genetically Engineered Plants.” Science. December 15, 2000.
(xi) Anthony Shadid. “Blown profits.” Boston Globe. 8 April 2001.
(xii) Kay, J., (October 13 2000), San Francisco Examiner.
(xiii) Neil E. Harl, et al, “The StarLink Situation,” IA State University.
And “Starlink corn crisis sparks regulatory, market concerns,” Food
and Chemical News, October 30, 2000.
(xiv) For instance, see: T. Hesman, “Crop experiments get more watchful
look; USDA ordered destruction of soybeans after contamination,” St. Louis
Post-Dispatch, Nov. 22, 2002; E. Weise, “Company is fined for ‘escaped’
corn,” USA Today, Dec. 9, 2002.
(xv) “Genetic Traits Spread to Non-Engineered Papayas in Hawaii,”
Environment News Service, September 10, 2004.
(xvi) Nordlee, J.D., Taylor, S.L, Townsend, J.A., Thomas, L.A. and Bush, R.K.
(1996). “Identification of a Brazil Nut Allergen in Transgenic Soybeans”
New England Journal of Medicine, Vol 334 (11) p. 726
(xvii) Schubbert, R., Lettmann, C. and Doerfler, W. (1994) Ingested foreign (phage
M13) DNA survives transiently in the gastrointestinal tract and enters the blood
stream of mice. Molecules, Genes and Genetics 242, 495-504.
(xviii) Schubbert, R. Hohlweg, U., Renz, D. and Doerfler, W. (1998) On the fate
of orally ingested foreign DNA in mice: chromosomal association and placental
transmission in the fetus. Molecules, Genes and Genetics 259, 569-576
(xix) Mercer, D.K., Scott, K.P., Bruce-Johnson, W.A., Glover, L.A. and Flint,
H.J. (1999) Fate of free DNA and transformation of oral bacterium Streptococcus
gordonii DL1 plasmid DNA in human saliva. Applied and Environmental Microbiology
65, 6-10.
(xx) Schubert, D. (2002). “A different perspective on GM food,” Nature
Biotechnology, Vol. 20, p. 969.
(xxi) Elias, P., (June 5, 2003) “Biotech Revolution Costs Organic Farmers”.
The Associated Press.
(xxii) Food & Drug Administration's (FDA) internal memoranda about the hazards
of genetically engineered foods, which became available through the lawsuit
(Alliance for Bio-Integrity et al., vs. Shalala, et al.)
(xxiii) Comments from Dr. Louis J. Pribyl re: the "Biotechnology Draft Document,
2/27/92.” Administrative Record (A.R.) 19179. Dated March 6, 1992.
(xxiv) Memorandum from Dr. Edwin J. Mathews to the Toxicology Section of the Biotechnology
Working Group. Subject: "Analysis of the Major Plant Toxicants." Administrative
Record (A.R.) 18572. Dated October 28, 1991.
(xxv) Reprinted with permission of Dr Suzanne Wuerthele, US Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) toxicologist
