"There is no justification for using millions of people as guinea
pigs for
a genetic experiment without even asking whether we want to
participate."
~ Benedikt Haerlin, Greenpeace
"The assumptions underlying the FDA's policy are so out of line with
sound scientific thinking that they cannot form a reliable basis for the
safety of our nation's food supply."
~ Dr. John Fagan
Ever wonder what it's like to be an experimental
laboratory animal? Wonder no more, because you -- like everyone else in
the U.S. and millions more throughout the world -- have been one for
years, as the planet's food supply has been massively infiltrated with
genetically modified foods (GMFs). It doesn't matter whether you are a
carnivore, Muslim or Jew, or vegan, you have already consumed an
alarming quantity of Frankenfoods.
The floodgates to the genetic engineering of the world's
food supply were opened in 1992 when the FDA absurdly declared that GMFs
are "substantially equivalent" to conventional foods, even though
"transgenic" species -- the product of splicing the genes of one
organism into another -- are unprecedented technological creations. The
agency's own top scientists argued this point and warned that genetic
alteration may create unexpected toxins, carcinogens, allergens, and
anti-nutritive substances. But to protect corporate over public
interests, and to allow corporations to regulate themselves ("with
informal FDA consultation only if significant safety or nutritional
concerns arise"), the FDA ignored the admonitions, suppressed the
documents (subsequently disclosed in a 1998 public interest law suit
against the agency), and began a campaign of lying to the American
public and world at large (for documentation see www.bio-integrity.org/).
Seizing the initiative, American transnational
corporations like Monsanto and Novartis began to engineer foods for
specific characteristics (mainly to make them resistant to herbicides
and insects) and aggressively marketed these to the world, using lies,
deception, cajolement, and illegal tactics when necessary. Although a
massive global protest movement against GMFs has been mounting for years
and finally reached the shores of the soporific U.S in late 1999, the
genetic revolution quite possibly has forever changed agricultural
methods.
Currently, 55% of soybeans, 35% of corn crops, 60% of
processed foods, and 60-75% of nonorganic food in U.S. supermarkets are
genetically modified. Four dozen GMFs cultivated over 90 million acres
of land turn up in a wide array of items, from tofu to tortillas, from
canola oil to corn chips, from potatoes to protein powder, from breads
to beer, and from syrups to salad dressings. And none are labeled as
genetically altered for, according to FDA, this would be "alarmist,"
"impractical," and "confusing" to the consumer since they declared GMFs
safe. This violates their own policy which requires that substances
added to foods be identified and which prohibits "false or misleading"
labeling.
The biotech industries want us to believe that GMFs are
a miracle cure for problems such as world hunger when in reality they
are trojan horses of profit and power. Interestingly, as the first wave
of innovation is running aground in failures, law suits, protests,
rejections, and crop burnings, a second wave of GMFs are being developed
in the form of "biopharming" or "edible vaccines" which could prevent or
cure diseases simply by eating genetically engineered raw foods.
Moreover, this development might prevent the need to exploit animals in
the new system of "pharming" which genetically alters their bodies to
produce drugs for human consumption. But this new "medicine on a fork"
likely will be impaled by the same problems and dangers besetting first
wave products.
Despite assurances from the government and Jolly Gene
Giants that GMFs are harmless, the fact is that gene-splicing is crude,
inexact, and unpredictable in its effects; that science has little clue
as to how genes interact with one another, especially when bizarre
transgenic novelties are created; and consequently that the Brave New
Foods are risky. Transgenic crops and foods are made using viruses,
bacteria, insect and pig DNA, and other substances as "vectors" that
transport foreign genes into cells. Invariably, antibiotic resistance
marker (ARM) genes are used to determine if genes were successfully
spliced into the host organism, and some researchers warn that ARMs will
contribute to the growing worldwide problem of antibiotic resistance.
Although you may seem fine, no one knows the potential
long-term effects of GMFs on the human body; certainly, the government
and biotech industries didn't care enough to find out before they flung
open the Pandora's box of gene splicing. Rather than embrace the
precautionary principle which says to take no action until it is proven
safe, rather than undertaking rigorous testing, and rather than giving
the consumer the choice of what to eat by labeling GMFs, the U.S.
government, its accomplices in Britain and elsewhere, and genetic
industries have rushed GMFs onto the marketplace in a mad dash for
profit and control of the global marketplace, stampeding sound science
through disinformation and powerful lobbying forces all along the way.
The inherent risks and unpredictability of genetic
recombination already have become manifest in a number of disturbing
phenomena and studies. The first indication that genetic engineering
could bring not only harmful but lethal results occurred in 1989, when a
batch of the dietary supplement
L-tryptophan killed 37 Americans, sickened 5,000 with a potentially
fatal blood disorder, and permanently disabled 1,500 others. The problem
was traced to a Japanese company which used genetically engineered
bacteria that unpredictably caused molecules of the compound to bind in
a novel and toxic manner.
Other uncertainties involve food allergies. Soybeans
genetically crossed with Brazil nuts (for a more complete protein) gave
hives to human volunteers allergic to the nuts. If the company testing
the product, Pioneer Hi-Bred International, had been irresponsible
enough to market it (they withdrew it in 1996), they would enjoyed the
blessings of the FDA. With this experiment,
however, the danger of serious allergic reactions to GMFs became vividly
clear. As scientist Dr. Mae-Wan Ho points out, "There is no known way to
predict the allergenic potential of [genetically engineered] foods."
Obviously, if labeling of ingredients in GMFs is not
enforced, it is impossible to identify allergens (8% of Americans have
food allergies). In general, given that biotechnology corporations use
genes from viruses, bacteria, insects, and animals, people have no
concept of what they are consuming. This means, for example, that
vegetarians may be ingesting fish genes in their tomatoes. The religious
beliefs of Muslims and Jews who wish to avoid specific animal products
are routinely flouted. And those who eat pork spliced with human genes
(for maximal growth effects) are not only carnivores but also cannibals.
In May 1999, entomologist Dr. John Losey from Cornell
University published a shocking study in Nature. In a laboratory
setting, he found that 44% of monarch caterpillars died within four days
when they consumed milkweed plants -- the staple of their diet -- dusted
with pollen from "Bt" corn genetically engineered with a bacterium
(Bacillus thuriniensis) to kill the European core borer. Other
butterflies were stunted in their growth, but those who consumed regular
crop pollen survived unharmed. What will be the fate of butterflies in a
world planted by Monsanto and Novartis? What will be the environmental
consequences of the genetic drift of Bt corn pollen (which could
contaminate not only milkweed plants but also "organic" crops)? What
might be happening to human beings who already are consuming a steady
diet of Bt corn crops? And why was this study done after the government
approved the use of Bt genes that were fused into a third of the U.S.
corn crop?
In October 1999, Dr. Arpad Pusztai and Dr. Stanley Ewen
published a more disturbing report in Lancet. Their controversial study
showed that over a period of 110 days (equivalent to 10 years in human
time), rats fed potatoes genetically engineered to produce an
insect-repelling chemical (a plant-derived compound called the "snowdrop
lectin") and using a common vector (the Cauliflower Mosaic Viral
Promoter [CaMv]), suffered damage to their vital organs, immune system,
and digestive tract, results which did not occur to rats fed ordinary
potatoes. The researchers concluded that the viruses used in the
gene-altering process made the potatoes toxic. Another study found that
CaMv "has the potential to reactivate dormant viruses or create new
viruses in all species to which it is transferred. This transgenic
instability increases the possibility of promotion of an inappropriate
over-expression of genes to the transferred species" which could lead,
among other things, to cancer.
A publication in the December 1999 issue of Nature
indicated that Bt toxins were leaching into the soil through the plant's
root systems and damaging or destroying beneficial microorganisms while
disrupting the entire soil ecology. The paper documented that Bt binds
with soil particles for up to 243 days and remains toxic to soil insects
for long periods of time. What could it be doing to us?
Finally, in late May 2000, at the same time as 600
British farmers learned they inadvertently planted oilseed rape
contaminated with GM seed from Canada, and Professor Hans-Hinrich Kaatz
in Germany found that genetically modified rape seed had jumped species
barriers and was taken up into the DNA of honey bees, Monsanto was
forced to admit that its GMFs contained unexpected gene fragments,
undermining their claim they can effectively manage and monitor genetic
technologies.
Call me, if you like, an alarmist, technophobe, or
bioluddite. Perhaps GMFs are still at an early stage of development and,
once the bugs are worked out (no pun intended), will become wonderfoods
that will be super-nutritious, cure diseases, reduce the need for
herbicides and pesticides, and save the planet from starvation. So say
the likes of Monsanto, the FDA, and Bill Clinton.
But logic, research, science, and a little political
savvy lead me to reject this surrealist utopia, and, increasingly, a
whole planet full of people share the fears and suspicions I have of
government agencies such as the FDA, USDA, EPA, the EU, and the WTO; the
biotech industries; and mainstream science whose "objectivity" is bought
and paid for by Monsanto, Novartis, American Cyanamid, and Dow
(although, increasingly, concerned and responsible scientists are loudly
condemning GMFs and FDA policy).
Whatever exciting potential might exist in GMFs is
overridden by the dangers of manipulating genetic ecologies and the
disastrous impact biotechnology already is having on the environment,
biodiversity, the world's farmers, and, perhaps soon enough, human
health. GMFs are carriers of allergens, viruses, toxins, carcinogens,
and increased pesticides, as new studies show they have reduced
nutritional value compared to conventional crops.
There should be an immediate moratorium on all genetic
modification of foods until we better understand this powerful
technology. We need sound science, more rigorous testing, and more
accountability (including liability for any damages caused by GMFs).
Minimally, since consumers have the right to know what they are eating,
there should be exact labeling of all foods with genetically modified
ingredients. Since studies show over 90% of U.S. citizens wouldn't buy
GMFs if they had the choice, and countries around the world are
rejecting U.S. food imports, it's no mystery why they aren't labeled.
With ever-increasing protests against GMFs around the
world, such as were part of the dramatic "Battle in Seattle" in December
1999, we are now at a crossroads where the future of the biotech
revolution is uncertain. GMFs could be pulled from the shelves, or they
could advance irrevocably to the point of total saturation of our food
supply (the industry predicts 100% of our food will be genetically
engineered within 5-10 years). The fact that the biotech industries are
currently on the defensive -- in areas ranging from major companies such
as Frito-Lay, Gerber, and Heinz vowing not to use genetically modified
ingredients to investment firms pulling out of the food biotechnology
field to farmers around the world rejecting GMFs -- speaks volumes as to
what consumer awareness and citizen struggles can do, but the fight has
only begun.
Until we are at least given a choice to eat "modified"
or "conventional" foods, I encourage extreme caution in selecting your
food options (such as they are). Since carnivores eat at the top of the
food chain, they consume the greatest amount of genetically modified
substances, and this is yet another reason to avoid meat. But in the
Brave New World of GMFs, being vegetarian or vegan is not enough
(vegetarians beware of genetically altered recombinant Bovine Growth
Hormone [rBGH] in your dairy products!); one also should assiduously
avoid genetically altered ingredients.
First and foremost, eschew all processed foods --
including granola bars, high-fructose corn syrup, and soy or rice-based
"ice cream" -- as they likely contain genetically engineered ingredients
such as soy lecithin. Second, eat organic food when possible as, at
least so far, organic crops are not genetically modified (although there
is the problem of genetic contamination and two years ago the USDA tried
to allow genetically modified ingredients and other impurities into
"organic" foods until they were clobbered by a quarter million angry
consumer responses). Unlike some pesticides, you can't wash gene-spliced
viruses or bacteria out of your food. Third, become educated and ask
questions. Know which companies use genetically engineered products, and
if you're not sure, call them. Study internet sites and various
publications to keep current with rapidly changing events.
Good luck, friends. Eating with awareness and being
healthy in a toxic world has become all the harder.
Go on to Urgent:
Homes Needed for 300 Cats in Indiana from gelaaltman@hotmail.com (Gela
Altman)
Return to 7 June 2000 Issue
Return to Newsletters
** Fair Use Notice**
This document may contain copyrighted material, use of which has not been
specifically authorized by the copyright owners. I believe that this
not-for-profit, educational use on the Web constitutes a fair use of the
copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law). If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your
own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner.
