Will Genetically Engineered Crops
Mean Contaminated and Toxic Food, Bodies, and Ecosystems?

Dr. Michael W. Fox, Senior Scholar/Bioethics 1999

The Humane Society of the United States 2100 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20037 202-293-5105

Without any scientifically or empirically verified evidence, advocates of agricultural biotechnology claim that genetically engineered (GE) or genetically modified (GM) crops are the answer to world hunger and will give food security to an ever increasing human population. In fact, a US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Economic Research Service Study of major transgenic crops that were planted in 1997 found that these crops, contrary to manufacturers' claims, did not show any improvement in yield or a reduction in pesticide costs compared to conventional crops (Food Chemical News, July 5, 1999, pp.13-14). Monsanto's Roundup Ready genetically engineered (GE) soybeans have been found to produce lower yields than conventional beans, and farmers are using more Roundup herbicide to deal with weed resistance. (See: Benbrook, C. 1999. Evidence of the Magnitude and Consequences of the Roundup Ready Soybean Yield Drag from University-Based Varietal Trials in 1998.

The claim that the agribiotechnology "life science" industry makes stating that by making conventional "production" agriculture more efficient, biodiversity can be protected and endangered species saved, is questionable. There is increasing scientific evidence to the contrary, which is why Great Britain is leading the European Economic Community (EEC) to put agricultural biotechnology on hold until more is known about the risks and benefits of GE crops, foods, and food additives and supplements (enzymes, vitamins, etc.); to more carefully monitor and effectively regulate agribiotechnology; and to apply the precautionary principle to this new technology. According to the US Grocery Manufacturers' Association, "about 25 percent of corn, 38 percent of soybeans (other informed sources estimate 50 percent), 35 percent of canola, and 45 percent of cotton crops are derived from biotechnology" (San Francisco Examiner, July 11, 1999). At the 12th (1999) annual Scientific Conference of the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM), more than 600 delegates from over 60 countries voted unanimously for a declaration against the use of genetically modified organisms in food production and agriculture. The delegates called on governments and regulatory agencies throughout the world to immediately ban the use of genetic engineering in agriculture and food production since it involves: ! Negative and irreversible environmental impacts. * Release of organisms of an unrecallable nature. * Removal of the right of choice, both for farmers and consumers. * Violation of farmers' fundamental property rights and endangerment of * their economic independence. * Practices which are incompatible with the principles of sustainable * agriculture as defined by IFOAM. * Unacceptable threats to human health. To regard many genetically engineered (GE) crops and supplements, foods, food additives, beverages and certain cosmetics, as being adulterated or contaminated, and even potentially toxic, and therefore posing potential risks to human and other consumers (including insects, birds, and wild and domesticated mammals) and to the environment is not unreasonable considering the following scientifically documented findings:

1. There is evidence that foreign DNA can enter the body via the gastrointestinal tract and cross the placenta (1,2).

2. Genetically modified organisms can produce unanticipated toxins (3,4) or allergens (5).

3. Gene transfer can occur between transgenic plants and bacteria, and between bacteria and mammalian cells, the ecological and health consequences of which could be catastrophic (6).

4. Milk from cows injected with rBGH, which is not analogous to normal BGH (7 ), has elevated insulin like growth factor that is implicated as a risk factor in human breast cancer (8,9).

5. Considering the documented evidence that horizontal gene transfer between species is a natural phenomenon (10 16), the precautionary principle must be applied in creating transgenic organisms that could transfer novel genes and viral vectors to other species (17 19). The ecological, evolutionary, and public health consequences of such transfers we will only know after the fact. Horizontal gene transfer is even likely to take place in the digestive systems of protozoa, nematodes, insect larvae, and other soil macro organisms (12).

6. That genes, like viruses, can infect the body (20,21), should serve as a warning to us all of the potential risks of transgenic organisms serving as a reservoir for new diseases, and as a medium for the evolution of new pathogens because of their altered physiology and biochemistry.

7. Unanticipated multiple side effects of gene insertion (called pleotropic effects) have been well documented. Viral "promoters" and "enhancers" that boost expression of transgenes could result in the production of high levels of Bt toxin and other chemicals in transgenic crops. Even more serious harm to the ecology of the soil may result, because this Bt toxin does not rapidly degrade in certain soils after the crop has been harvested and the remains used as compost. This toxin in transgenic crops is likely to accumulate more and more in the soil after each crop, and will poison many beneficial insects and other organisms essential for the ecological health and fertility of the soil. This could effect the nutritive value of crops grown in sterilized soil. (22) Genetic alterations in crops like soybeans to make them resistant to herbicides may result in unpredictable, unnatural genetic recombinations and change the biochemistry and nutritive value. Higher levels of phyto estrogens are produced in beans grown in the presence of the herbicide glyphosate, which may be of particular risk to children (23). Food residues of this herbicide now widely used on transgenic crops, may increase the incidence of certain types of cancer. (24) Genetically modified herbicide tolerant soybeans have lower levels (12-14 percent) of beneficial phytoestrogens compared to conventional beans grown under similar conditions. (25)

8. The highly controversial research findings of a reputable scientist, Dr. Arpal Pusztai from the UK government's Rowett Research Institute, revealed adverse health effects in rats fed genetically engineered potatoes. He reported abnormal organ development and weakening of the immune system attributable to either the cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV) that was used as a promoter (and in many other transgenic crops), or to the active genetically spliced insecticidal lectins present in these GE potatoes. Liver, brain, and heart sizes of the rats decreased. (26)

9. Some 99 percent of commercial transgenic crops incorporate virus genes, either as promoters or to control virus infections. These virus genes can recombine with other viruses and may result in new diseases and more invasive pathogens (27 31). With the inclusion of antibiotic resistance markers, transgenic crops could therefore increase the probability of new viral and bacterial pathogens and the spread of antibiotic and drug resistance genes.

10. DNA released from living and dead cells can persist in the environment and be transferred to other organisms. An organism may be dead, but its "naked" DNA released from decaying cells may remain biologically active for potentially thousands of years, especially in certain soils and marine sediments. (32). Naked DNA (nucleic acids) ingested by mice can be transferred to offspring and be voided and spread in animals' feces (2).

11. One must therefore consider not only the "fate" of transgenic organisms but also the genes and viruses or parts thereof, that have been inserted into them. Such "naked DNA", in the form of recombinant and modified nucleic acids, has been found capable of surviving and remaining functional longer after organisms' death than was assumed previously. (6, 32) Furthermore, xenobiotics, especially dioxins and various agrichemicals, can act as mutagens (33), altering the structure and sequence of DNA and also increasing the permeability of cells and the incorporation of foreign DNA into living organisms.

12. The instability of transgenic crops is a major concern. Almost all GE crops that contain the CaMV promoter are evidently prone to instability due to recombinations, instability of crops being further compounded by unpredictable gene silencing mechanisms (34). There is, in fact, no data documenting the stability of any transgenic line in gene expression, or in structure and location of the insert in the genome. Such data must include the level of gene expression, as well as a genetic map and DNA base sequence of the insert and its site of insertion in the host genome in each successive generation. No such information has ever been provided by industry, nor requested by regulatory authorities. (35). 13. Several field studies have shown that pollen from GE crops can contaminate the germ lines of conventional and organically grown varieties and wild relatives (36). In addition to such genetic contamination or pollution, GE pollen, as from Bt corn, may be toxic to insects and other organisms (37).

Government Assurance

The US agri-biotechnology food industry insists that between the FDA, EPA and USDA, a food safety regulatory system has been set up to protect consumers that is the best in the world. The death of 27 people and illness and chronic disability of several thousand more who consumed a genetically engineered form of L-tryptophan in 1989 (38) is countered by unsubstantiated claims of subsequent improved regulatory procedures. Similarly the advocates of agri-biotechnology crops and foods point to the early identification, by scientists, of a brazil nut allergen, potentially lethal for some people, in transgenic soybeans that were never marketed because of these findings. (39) But this gives us no assurance that other novel, untested substances in GE foods are safe for all consumers. Dr. Suzanne Wuerthele, EPA risk assessor, states, "It took us 60 years to realize that DDT might have oestrogenic activities and affect humans, but we are now being asked to believe that everything is ok with GM foods because we haven't seen any dead bodies yet." (40) Foreign DNA and RNA in GE foods may cause not only new allergies, but also impair immune function and trigger or aggravate autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis and glomerunephrosis (kidney disease). (41)

Conclusions

Contamination of the "life stream" by naked recombinant DNA, by transgenic viral vectors, and antibiotic resistant genes is probably already taking place. Since a recall is impossible, our best hope, if we are to avert potentially catastrophic consequences, is a five year worldwide moratorium on the creation and release of all genetically engineered living entities and products, from new vaccines to transgenic crops, so that science based risk assessments can be properly completed and the precautionary principle upheld. We fear radioactive plutonium, which has a half-life of forty thousand years, so we cannot ignore the risks of transgenic organisms and recombinant DNA that may have a half-life of forty million years. Biochemist and a father of molecular biology, Prof. Erwin Chargoff, writes, "Science has transgressed a barrier that should have remained inviolate...You cannot recall a new life form...It will survive you and your children and your children's children. An irreversible attack on the biosophere is something so unheard of, so unthinkable to previous generations, that I could only wish that mine had not been guilty of it." (42) The new technology of genetic engineering that is being developed by the "life science" industry is cause for concern because it is taking us beyond evolution and natural law. The rates of genetic mutation/recombination, and exchange between widely different species (like plants and insects, fish and fruit, and pigs and people) are being rapidly accelerated for purely commercial purposes, as the reproductive boundaries that help preserve species' integrity, health and vitality, as well as ecological balance, are disregarded. The end result could well be a chaotic "genetic apocalypse," the only beneficiary of which will be its creator, called to heal and feed us all: the "life science" industry. The genetic integrity of individuals, species, communities and the future of all life on Earth now hang in the balance of our final choice and perception: And that is between reverence and exploitation.

POSTSCRIPT

In May 1999, the British Medical Association released an interim statement on "The Impact of Genetic Modification on Agriculture, Food and Health", citing a critical need for more data on allergenicity and possible toxicity of GM foods. This statement included the following points of concern:

1. Information about the effect of genetic modification on the chemical composition of food, and in particular its safety is needed urgently.

2. Adverse effects are likely to be irreversible; once GMOs are released into the environment they cannot be subject to control.

3. The BMA rejected the notion that GM foods should be assumed to be safe when they are said to be substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts, which is the basis of U.S. regulation of biotech foods. "This concept does not account for gene interaction of unexpected kinds which may take place in GM foods," the statement asserts. "The possibility that certain novel genes inserted into food may cause problems to humans is a real possibility, and 'substantial equivalence' is a rule which can be used to evade this biological fact."

4. Among several recommendations, the BMA urged that: • The precautionary principle should be applied in developing genetically modified crops or foodstuffs, as we cannot at present know whether there are any serious risks to the environment or to human health involved in producing GM crops or consuming GM food products.

• Careful consideration needs to be given to the effect of GMOs on farming practices, the countryside and wildlife and we therefore recommend a moratorium on the commercial planting of GM crops in the UK. The moratorium should continue until there is scientific consensus (or as close agreement as reasonably achievable) about the potential long term environmental effects.
• GM foodstuffs should be segregated at source, to enable identification and traceability of GM products.
• There should be a ban on the use of antibiotic resistance marker genes in GM food, as the risk to human health from antibiotic resistance developing in micro organisms is one of the major public health threats that will be faced in the 21st Century.
• The risk that GM crops may increase the use of herbicides and pesticides in the environment needs to be comprehensively assessed to determine their full environmental impact. END NOTES

1. Doerfler, W. and Schubbert, R. 1998. Uptake of foreign DNA from the environment: the gastrointestinal tract and the placenta as portals of entry. Wien Klin.Wochenschr. 110:40 4.

2. Schubbert, R. et al. 1997. Foreign (M13) DNA ingested by mice reaches peripheral leukocytes, spleen, and liver via intestinal wall mucosa and can be covalently linked to mouse DNA. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94:961 966 . See also: Shubbert, R., et al. 1998. On the fate of orally ingested foreign DNA in mice: chromosomal association and placental transmission to the fetus. Mol. Gen. Genet. 259(6) 569 576.

3. Inose, T. & Muruta, K. 1995. Enhanced accumulation of toxic compound in yeast cells having high glycolytic activity: a case study on the safety of genetically engineered yeast. Int. J. Food Science Tech. 30:141 146

4. Reddy, S.A. & Thomas, T.L. 1996. Expression of a cyanobacteria delta 6 desaturase gene results in gamma linolenic acid production in transgenic plants. Nature Biotechnol. 14: 629 42.

5. Nordlee, J.A. et al. 1996. Identification of a Brazil nut allergen in transgenic soybeans. New Engl. J. Med. 334: 688 692; See also: Nestle, M. 1996. Allergies and transgenic foods questions of policy. New Engl. J. Med. 334: 726 727.

6. Nielsen, K.M. et al. 1998. Horizontal gene transfer from transgenic plants to terrestrial bacteria a rare event? FEMS Microbiological Reviews 22: 79 103. See also: De Vries, J. and Wackernagel, W. 1998. Detection of nptII (kanamycin resistance) genes in genomes of transgenic plants by marker-rescue transformation. Mol. Gen. Genet. 257: 606-13. (Transfer of antibiotic resistance genes to soil bacteria was demonstrated.)

7. Violand, B.N., et al. Isolation of Escherichia coli synthesized recombinant eukaryocyte proteins that contain epsilon acetyllysine. Protein Sci. 3:1089 97. 8. Outwater, J.L. et al. 1997. Dairy products and breast cancer: the IGF 1, estrogen and BGH hypothesis. Med. Hypotheses 48: 453 61. See also: Chan, J.M., et al. 1998. Plasma insulin like growth factor (IGF 1) and prostate cancer risk: A prospective study. Science 279:23.

9. Hawkinson, S.E. et al. 1998. Circulating concentrations of insulin like growth factor 1 and risk of breast cancer. Lancet 352: 1393 6. See also: Gebauer, G., et al. 1998. mRNA expression of components of the insulin like growth factor system in breast cancer cell lines, tissues, and metastatic breast cancer cells. Anti cancer Res. 18:2A 1191 5; and, Prosser, C.G., et al. 1989. Increased secretion of insulin like growth factor 1 into milk of cows treated with recombinantly derived bovine growth hormone. J. Dairy Sci. 56:17 26.

10. Wostemayer, J. et al. 1997. Horizontal gene transfer in the rhizosphere: a curiosity or a driving force in evolution? Adv. Bot. Res. Incorp. Adv. Plant Pathol. 24:399 429.

11. Stachel, S.E. and Zambryski, P.C. 1989. Generic trans kingdom sex? Nature 340: 190 191.

12. Lorenz, M.G. and Wackernagel, W. 1994. Bacterial gene transfer by natural genetic transformation in the environment. Microbiol. 156: 319 26; see also: Harding, K. 1996. The potential for horizontal gene transfer within the environment. Agro Food Ind. Hi-Tech 7:31-5.

13. Kidwell, M.G. 1993. Lateral transfer in natural populations of eukaryotes. Annu. Rev. Genet. 27: 235 256.

14. Heinemann, J.A. 1991. Genetics of gene transfer between species. Trends Genet. 7:181 185.

15. Mikkelson, T.R., et al. 1996. The risk of crop transgene spread. Nature 380:31.

16. Chevre, A.M. et al. 1997. Gene flow from transgene crops. Nature 389:924. See also: Coghlan, A. 1999. Gone with the wind. New Scientist, April 17. p. 25.

17. Dreiseikelmann, B. 1994. Translocation of DNA across bacterial membranes. Microbiol. Rev. 58: 293 316; see also: Holmgren, L. et al. 1999. Horizontal transfer of DNA by the uptake of apoptopic bodies. Blood 93:3956-63.

18. Green, A.E. & Allison, R.F. 1994. Recombination between viral RNA and transgenic plant transcripts. Viruses and transgenic crops. Science 263:1423 24.

19. Harding, K. 1996. The potential for horizontal gene transfer within the environment. Agro Food Ind. Hi Tech. 7:31 35.

20. Canonico, A. E., et al. 1994. Aerosol and intravenous transfection of human alpha 1 antitrypsin gene to lungs of rabbits. Am. J. Respir. Cell. Mol. Biol. 10:24 29. 21. Wolff, J.A., et al. 1990. Direct gene transfer into mouse muscle in vivo. Science 247:1465 68.

22. Crecchio, C. and G. Stotzky (1998) Insecticidal activity and biodegradation of the toxin from Bacillus thuringiensis subsp.kurstaki bound to humic acids from soil. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 30:463 70.

23. Steinbrecher, R. 1998. Gene debate: What is wrong with Nature? Resurgence 188: 17 19.

24. Hardell, L. and Erikkson, M. 1999. A case-control study of non-Hodjkin's lymphoma and exposure to pesticides. Cancer 85 (6).

25. Lappe, M. A., et al. 1999. Alteration in clinically important phytoestrogens in genetically modified, herbicide-tolerant soybeans. Journal of Medicinal Food 1 (4); see also: Lappe, M.A. and Bailey, B. 1998. Against the Grain. Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press.

26. The Guardian, February 12, 1999, p.6. See also: Rhodes, J. M. (1999) Genetically modified foods and the Pusztai affair. (Letter) British Medical Journal 318:1284.

27. Greene, A.E. and Allison, R.F. 1994. Recombination between viral RNA and transgenic plant transcripts. Science 263: 1423 5.

28. Wintermantel, W.M. and Schoelz, J.E. 1996. Isolation of recombinant viruses between cauliflower mosaic virus and a viral gene in transgenic plants under conditions of moderate selection pressure. Virology 223: 156 64.

29. Borja, M., Rubio, T., Scholtof, H., and Jackson, A. 1999. Restoration of wild type virus by double recombination of tomusvirus mandtants with a host transgene. Mol. Plant Microbe Interact 12: 153 62.

30. Gal, S., Pisan, B., Hohn, T., Grimsley, N., and Hohn, B. 1992. Agroinfection of transgenic plants leads to viable cauliflower mosaic virus by intramolecular recombination. Virology 187: 525 33.

31. Gebhard, E. and Smalla, K. 1998 Transformation of Actinobacter sp. strain BD 413 by transgenic sugar beet DNA. Applied Envir. Microbiol. 64: 1550 1554.

32. Traavik, T. 1999. Too early may be too late: Ecological risks associated with the use of naked DNA as a biological tool for research, production, and therapy. Research Report for DN 1999. Trondheim, Norway. Directorate for Nature Management. For further discussion, see: Fox, M.W. 1999. Beyond Evolution: The Genetically Altered Future of Plants, Animals, the Earth...and Humans. New York: Lyons Press. 33. Colborn, T., et al. 1994. Developmental effects of endocrine disrupting chemicals in wildlife and humans. Envir. Impact. Assess. Rev. 14:469 89.

34. Kohli, A. et al. 1999. Molecular characterization of transforming plasmid rearrangement in transgenic rice reveals a recombination hotspot in the CaMV promoter and confirms the predominance of microhomology mediated recombination. The Plant Journal 17(6):591-601; and Neve, M., et al. 1999. Gene silencing results in instability of antibody production in transgenic plants. Molecular and General Genetics 260:580-92.

35. Ho, Mae Wan 1999. Dangerous liaison deadly gamble, p.105 120 in: Agricultural Biotechnology and Environmental Quality: Gene Escape and Pest Resistance. Biotechnology Council Report #10. Ithaca, NY.

36. For several citations, see: Fox, M. W. 1999. Beyond Evolution: The Genetically Altered Future of Plants, Animals, the Earth...and Humans. New York: The Lyons Press; see also: 1999. Nature Biotechnology 17:629. Swiss farmers seek GM compensation. Normal maize has unapproved GM genes.

37. Losey, J. E., et al. 1999. Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae. Nature 399:214.

38. Mayeno, A. N. and G. J. Gleich (1994) Eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome and Tryptophen production: a cautionary tale. Tibtech 12:346-52.

39. Nordlee, J., et al. 1996. Identification of a Brazil nut allergen in transgenic soybeans. New England Journal of Medicine 334:688-92.

40. Wuerthele, S. 1999. Cited in: Long-term effects of GM crops serves up food for thought by D. Butler and T. Reichhardt. Nature 398:651.

41. Marin, 1999. Immunological reactions to DNA and RNA. Physicians and Scientists for the Responsible Application of Science and Technology. July 2. (For critical scientific concerns of GE foods, see: [www.psrast.org] ). Cited in: Alex, J. 1999. Imagine a World Without Monarch Butterflies: Awakening to the Hazards of Genetically Altered Foods. Becket, MA: One Peaceful World Press.

42. Chargoff, E. 1978. Heraclitean Fire. New York: Rockefeller University Press.

POSTSCRIPT FOR CONCERNED SCIENTISTS

A World Scientists' Statement launched in Cartegena, Columbia, during the UN Convention of Biological Diversity Conference on the International Biosafety Protocol, calls on all governments to: Impose an immediate moratorium on further environmental releases of transgenic crops, food and animal-feed products for at least 5 years.

Ban patents on living organisms, cell lines and genes.

Support a comprehensive, independent public enquiry into the future of agriculture and food security for all, taking account of the full range of scientific findings as well as socioeconomic and ethical implications. Sign on at website: [ www.i-sis.dircon.co.uk ]

ADDITIONAL REFERENCES

Potential Biohazards of GE Products

Research by the Scottish Crop Research Institute reported at the Gene Flow in Agriculture: Relevance for Transgenic Crops Conference, Keele University, April 1999 (British Crop Protection Council Symposium Proceedings No. 72) reported oilseed rape pollen in beehives at 4.5 km (2..8 miles) from a field of oilseed rape.

Bacteria in the human mouth may be able to take up DNA from transgenic foods such as antibiotic resistance marker genes and novel DNA constructs involving viral enhancers/promoters. D. K. Mercer, et al. (1999) Fate of free DNA and transformation of the oral bacterium Streptococcus gordonii DL1 by plasmid DNA in human saliva. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 65:6-10.

Using GM crops as animal feed may pose risks since processing may not eliminate the risk of transmission of transgenes in the gut of farm animals (DNA was found to be completely stable in silage). J. M. Forbes, et al. (1998) Effect of feed processing conditions on DNA fragmentation. Section 5, Scientific Report. London: UK Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food.

Fragments of naked DNA even as small as 25bp can stimulate autoimmune reactions, which poses a serious risk for certain gene therapies, naked DNA vaccines, and GM foods. K. Suzuki, et al. (1999) Activation of target-tissue immune-recognition molecules by double-stranded polynucleotides. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96:2285-90.

Genetic material can be exchanged between bacteria and viruses to create new pathogens, a phenomenon that may be accelerated by genetic engineering. M. W. Ho, et al. (1998) Gene technology and gene ecology of infectious diseases. Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease 10:33-59. See also: W. J. Martin (1999) Bacteria-related sequences in a simian cytomegalovirus-derived stealth virus culture. Experimental and Molecular Pathology 66:8-14.

The herbicide glufosinate may be linked with the development of human birth defects in fathers exposed to this and other agripoisons. A. Garcia, et al. (1998) Paternal exposure to pesticides and congenital malformations. Scand J Work Environ Health 24:473-80.

Genetically engineered microorganisms can persist in certain soils and cause changes in soil biota that may harm nutrient cycling process and plant growth. M. T. Holmes, et al. (1999) Effects of Klebsiella planticola SDF20 on soil biota and wheat growth in sandy soil. Applied Soil Ecology 11:67-78.

"The possibility that a plant vector in common use in some GM plants can affect the mucosa of the gastrointestinal tract and exert powerful biological effects may also apply to GM plants containing similar constructs, particularly those containing lectins, such as soya beans or any plants expressing lectin genes or transgenes." S.W.B. Ewen and A. Pusztai (1999) Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine. Lancet 354:1353-54.

Lectins disrupt the immune system and cell development, and have been shown to bind to human white blood cells which play a vital role in immune system function. B. Fenton, et al. (1999) Differential binding of insecticidal lectin GNA to human blood cells. Lancet 354:1354-55.

Monsanto's GE soybeans have a 26.7 percent increase in a major allergen called trypsin inhibitor. This is a growth inhibitor, and rats fed Monsanto's soy had their growth rates inhibited. The 50 percent rise between 1998 and 1999 of the British public becoming allergic to soy products correlates with the import of GE soybeans from the US. Mark Varey, York Nutritional Laboratories, UK (personal communication to Mae-Wan Ho, ISIS news update, December 1999).

GE crops may be more vulnerable than conventional crop varieties to climatic extremes. B. Vencill, following up on GE soybean producers in Georgia having poor yields after a hot summer, found that Monsanto's Roundup Ready soybeans had lower heights, yields and weights, and that their stems split more easily, allowing for secondary fungal infection. B. Vencill. 1999. Splitting headache: Monsanto's modified soybeans are cracking up in the heat. New Scientist, Nov. 20. p.25. Advocates of Bt corn say the corn is safer for consumers and livestock because there's less risk of aflatoxin poisoning that is more common in non GE corn because of greater corn borer infestation that encourages aflatoxin and other fungal invasions of pest-damaged corn. But the "conservation" practice of "no-till" farming, which leaves much crop residue on the soil surface, provides the ideal substrate for these fungi to proliferate and contaminate future crops. Corn, often rotated with soybeans the next season, are the main crops that consume most of industrial agriculture's acreage. These vast "monocrops" from millions of identical acres, devoid of wildlife, biodiversity and viable human community, are still rationalized by government and some members of academia, because these publicly subsidized biomass commodity crops are so profitable to the livestock feed and processed human and pet food industries. (So consumers are advised to avoid processed foods and meat, fish, eggs, and dairy products from animals fed GE crops and by-products. Most of industrial agriculture's ("agribusiness") acres do not feed people directly with whole foods and what whole foods that they do purchase are not even organic, but come from pesticide contaminated, nutrient-deficient soils and crops.

Further concerns over the adverse ecological impact of Bt corn have been raised by D. Saxena, et al. A "surprising and unexpected" finding was that the Bt toxin leaks from the corn plant roots into the soil, where it remains and is not easily broken down. This will disrupt nutrient cycling as soil microorganisms are harmed; impair microbial biocontrol of plant diseases and possibly affect the corn plant's immune system. D. Saxena, S. Flores, and G. Stotsky. 1999. Insecticidal toxin in root exudates from Bt corn. Nature 402:480.

An Iowa State University survey done in 1998 showed that farmers who planted GE soybeans, according to M. A. Edelman and B. L. Finchbaugh, had no significant yield difference from conventional soy producers. Higher yields but higher costs were found with Bt corn, with net returns to land and labor being virtually identical to non GE corn. Farm Journal, November 1999.

Mae-Wan Ho, et al., have raised the issue of the inherent risks of all transgenic crops containing the Cauliflower Mosaic Virus (CaMV35S) or similar promoters that are recombinogenic. The use of the Cauliflower Mosaic Viral promoter (CaMV) has the potential to reactivate dormant viruses or create new viruses in all species to which it is transferred. CaMV is known to be found in practically all current transgenic crops released commercially or undergoing field trials. This transgenic instability increases the possibility of promotion of an inappropriate over-expression