"Improving Nature"
Genetic Engineering as Biohazard: An Introduction to the Issues
Lucy Sharratt / Sierra Club of Canada by 23oct98

Overview

The following is a sketch of the environmental threats posed by genetic engineering in agriculture.

Genetically Engineered Crops as Biohazard: A Comparison with Nuclear Waste

Genetic engineering is often compared to nuclear power in its potential for environmental catastrophe. Genetic engineering is a technology owned by multinational chemical and pharmaceutical corporations and is a complex science. Many of the same concerns that arise with nuclear power arise with genetic engineering.

Genetic engineering in agriculture is promoted as a "solution" to problems of food scarcity and food production that already have sustainable and just solutions. Genetic engineering is argued as the alternative to chemical agriculture. Not only is this a false representation of the future of genetic engineering but this argument ignores the sustainable agricultural practices that feed people throughout the world.

Like nuclear waste, genetic changes in ecosystems will threaten environmental and human health for generations. The true impacts of the introduction of new species may not be understood for generations, if understood at all, and the negative effects will amplify over time.

As with nuclear waste disposal, the assumption is made that science can solve any environmental problems that genetic engineering may present and that, though our knowledge is incomplete right now, all we need is more information to make genetic engineering safe.

As with most unproven technologies that translate into huge corporate profits but carry environmental and human health risks, the ecological costs are understated and are calculated as inevitable costs of economic progress.

Much like the effects of pesticides, the impacts of "genetic pollution" on the environment and human health will not be easily traced back to their source.

Once genetically engineered organisms are released into the environment they can mutate, multiply and spread. Once released, genetically engineered plants, fish and bacteria cannot be recalled

Biopiracy

Genetic technologies rely on a plundering of the "genetic resources" of the worlds most diverse ecosystems. Peoples of the South, particularly indigenous peoples as keepers of traditional knowledges, are subject to what has become known as biopiracy or bioprospecting. In the South, national governments are being offered money by multinational corporations to catalogue their biodiversity. Corporations are appropriating traditional knowledges and "inventing" living organisms based on these. Intellectual property rights are allowing corporations to claim patent protection over plants where they have "discovered" the genetic codes for certain properties.

"Food, Health, Hope" is Monsanto's promise for genetic engineering in agriculture. Monsanto and other multinational chemical and pharmaceutical corporations have launched their self-named "Life Sciences Industry" with huge private financial resources as well as the regulatory support of governments and the World Trade Organization. These corporations are promising solutions to the problems of world hunger and environmental degradation as they define them.

"Patenting living organisms encourages two forms of violence. First, life-forms are treated as if they are mere machines, thus denying their self-organizing capacity. Second, by allowing the patenting of future generations of plants and animals, the self-reproducing capacity if living organisms is denied." (Vandana Shiva, Biopiracy: The Plunder of Nature and Knowledge, 1997: 23)

Dangers of Reductionist Science

Genetic engineering is a reductionist science, so-called because of the limitations of this scientific paradigm that reduces life to its genetic code. Genes do not work independently of one another but are bound together in complex relationships. Genetic engineering ignores these and other factors such as the influence of the environment over genetic behaviors. 95% of DNA is termed ‘junk DNA’ because scientists do not know their function.

Some Key Questions

There are a number of important questions that need to be asked about genetic engineering. These include the following:

• Is genetic engineering socially useful? Will the benefits that are promised materialize? More importantly, do these benefits meet the needs of farmers and society at large?
• Has there been democratic deliberation over the introduction of these new technologies? Who is making the decision to release genetically engineered organisms into the environment?
• What resources are being spent on the research, development and commercialization of genetic engineering that could be spent on the development of sustainable agriculture practices? What problems are genetically engineered products manufactured to solve?

The Biodevastation of Genetic Engineering

Increased Herbicide Use

Up to 75% of research in the application of genetic engineering in agriculture is focused on herbicide and pesticide resistant crops.(CIELAP, Citizen’s Guide to Biotechnology) Herbicide resistant crops are designed to solve the problem of chemical herbicides unintentionally killing crops with weeds. Herbicide resistant crops allow for more frequent and more intensive applications of herbicides.

Herbicide resistant crops are designed to be resistant to specific brand-name herbicides and therefore secure a market for the chemical manufacturer. Monsanto produces the number one selling herbicide in the world, Round-up, and has now developed Round-up Ready Canola and Round-up Ready Soy that are already being grown in Canada.

Development of Herbicide and Pesticide Resistance

The inevitable cross-pollination or cross-breeding of genetically engineered plants with wild relatives or with neighboring non-engineered crops is called "genetic pollution." Genetic pollution, or the escape of transgenic crops, poses a number of ecological risks. Prospects include the creation of "superweeds" that would be herbicide resistant. Canola (oilseed rape), for example, is known to crossbreed easily with wild relatives.

The Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) is a soil bacterium known to deter many common pests. The Bt gene has been inserted into potato DNA to produce a Bt potato that is resistant to the Colorado potato beetle. Genetically engineering Bt into corn, cotton and potatoes could result in "superbugs" resistant to Bt. Bt is widely used by organic farmers and insect resistant would be a serious set-back for organic pest management.

Displacement of Native Species

The effects of introducing new species into ecosystems is unpredictable. An alarming possibility is the displacement of native species by the introduction or accidental release of organisms genetically engineered to adapt to environmental or climatic conditions. Fish that are engineered to tolerate cold may escape from fish farms and enter new habitats. In British Columbia Atlantic Salmon have escaped fish farms, a scenario that industry claimed was impossible, and the prospect of these breeding with Pacific Salmon is a concern.

Harm to Unintended Insects

Researchers at the Scottish Crop Research Institute have found that the lifespan of ladybugs, a beneficial insect, was reduced in half when they ate aphids that fed on Bt potatoes. In Thai field tests of BT cotton, 30 percent of the bees around the test fields died.(IPR Info, 1998)

Threats to Biodiversity

Genetic engineering promotes monocropping and further erodes biodiversity. Intellectual property rights and farmer dependence on corporate seed are undermining efforts to preserve and relearn knowledges of food production systems based in biological diversity.

Corporate Concentration in Agriculture

Genetic engineering will complete the process of the industrialization of agriculture. With genetic engineering, seeds and the very stuff of life are sold for corporate profit.

The "Terminator Technology" produces a seed that is genetically programmed to produce only once. Farmers will be able to plant this seed for production in the first generation but the seed will then be sterile. This technology is an attack on the traditional plant breeders rights to save seed and will force farmers back to the seed market each year. This will have a devastating impact on poorer farmers, especially small farmers of the South who depend on saved seed. The prospect of cross pollination of the Terminator with other crops and weeds poses a biosafety hazard. The Rural Advancement Foundation International and non-governmental organizations across the world are demanding a global ban on the use of the Terminator technology

Farmers who plant genetically engineered seeds must sign a restrictive contract with the corporation that sells them. The contract makes it unlawful for farmers to save seed for replanting and allows the corporation access to the farm for inspection and surveillance

Risks to Human Health

Possible health risks of genetically engineered foods include the creation of new toxins and allergens. In one case Brazil nut genes were spliced into soybeans resulting in a soybean that caused an allergic reaction in people with Brazil nut-sensitivities. Fortunately this reaction was detected before the product reached the market. There is also the prospect of unpredictable mutations of the genetic code causing new diseases and weakness

Animal Health

In the case of Bovine Growth Hormone, animal health problems will require increased use of antibiotics.

"Pharming" is the vision of pharmaceutical corporations who intend to use animals to produce pharmaceuticals in their milk and blood.

"Inventing" and Owning Life

Genetic engineering is the corporate exploitation of life for profit. Intellectual Property Rights are converting biodiversity from a local commons into an enclosed private property. (Shiva 1997: 67) There is an international "No Patents on Life" campaign. 

Action

Global Action Against Genetic Engineering

The fight against genetic engineering is a struggle for sustainable agriculture, safe food, and just food production processes.

In the United Kingdom the Genetix Snowball Campaign has encouraged citizens to destroy transgenic crops in public protest of the unacceptable ecological risks taken. Across the UK people have entered fields dressed in biohazard suits and concealed the pulled plants in bags wrapped with biohazard tape. Because of intensive crops destructions by grassroots collectives, industry has recently negotiated a five-year moratorium in the UK on the commercial growing of transgenic crops.

Crop destructions are common throughout Europe and some French farmers are now in court defending their action and testifying to the destructive potential of transgenic crops.

Conclusion

Genetic engineering threatens the environment in ways never before imagined and endangers the livelihoods of small farmers across the world. Genetic engineering claims ownership over living organisms. It is for these reasons that there is intensifying global resistance to the patenting of life and the dangerous applications of this technology. 

Lucy Sharratt is a founding member of the Ottawa Public Working Group on Food Concerns and is a graduate student in the Institute of Political Economy at Carleton University where she researches the regulation of genetic engineering.