textfiles/magazines/EUTHANASIA/genetically.engineered.crops

Unknown risks of genetically engineered crops
by Jeremy Rifkin

On May 20, the term "genetic pollution" officially entered the public
lexicon. Scientists at Cornell University reported in the journal Nature
that the pollen from genetically engineered corn containing a toxin gene
called Bt killed 44 percent of the monarch butterfly caterpillars who
fed on milkweed leaves dusted with it. By contrast, caterpillars fed
with conventional pollen all survived. The results are all the more
shocking given the fact that nearly 25 percent of the US corn crop now
contains the Bt transgene and the Corn Belt states of the Midwest are
where half of the monarch butterflies are produced each year.

In the wake of the monarch butterfly study, a growing number of
scientists now say they wonder about the potential environmental effects
of scores of other genetically engineered crops being introduced into
the agricultural fields. Indeed, some critics are asking why these and
other studies weren't done before introducing genetically engineered
corn, soy, cotton and other crops over millions of acres of farm land.

The fact is, genetically engineered crops are radically different from
conventional crops because they contain genes in their biological
make-up from completely unrelated species. For example, scientists have
introduced an antifreeze gene from flounder fish into the genetic code
of a tomato plant to protect the plant from cold spells. While
scientists have long been able to cross close relatives in the plant
kingdom, the new genetic tools allow them to cross all of the biological
boundaries, adding genes from viruses, bacteria, other animals and
plants into the genetic code of traditional food crops.

Ecologists are unsure of the impacts of bypassing natural species
boundaries. Consider, for example, the ambitious plans to engineer
transgenic plants to serve as pharmaceutical factories for the
production of chemicals and drugs. Foraging animals, seed-eating birds,
and soil insects will be exposed to a range of genetically engineered
drugs, vaccines, industrial enzymes, plastics, and hundreds of other
foreign substances for the first time, with untold consequences.

Over the next 10 years, life science companies plan on introducing
thousands of laboratory-conceived transgenic plants over millions of
acres of farmland around the world. Ecologists tell us that the risks in
releasing these novel crops into the biosphere are similar to those
we've encountered in introducing exotic organisms into North America.
While many of these nonnative creatures have adapted to the North
American ecosystems without severe dislocations, a small percentage of
them have wreaked havoc on the flora and fauna of the continent.

Whenever a genetically engineered organism is released, there is always
a small chance that it too will run amok because, like nonindigenous
species, it has been artificially introduced into a complex environment
that has developed a web of highly integrated relationships over long
periods of evolutionary history.

Much of the current effort in agricultural biotechnology is centered on
the creation of herbicide-tolerant plants. To increase their share of
the growing global market for herbicides, life-science companies like
Monsanto and Novartis have created transgenic crops that tolerate their
own herbicides. Monsanto's new herbicide-resistant patented seeds, for
example, are resistant to its best-selling chemical herbicide, Roundup.

The companies hope to convince farmers that the new herbicide-tolerant
crops will allow for a more efficient eradication of weeds. Farmers will
be able to spray at any time during the growing season, killing weeds
without killing their crops. Critics warn that with new
herbicide-tolerant crops planted in the fields, farmers are likely to
use even greater quantities of herbicides to control weeks, as there
will be less fear of damaging their crops in the process of spraying.
The increased use of herbicides, in turn, raises the possibility of
weeds developing resistance, forcing an even greater use of herbicides
to control the more resistant strains.

New pest-resistant transgenic crops, such as Bt corn, are also being
introduced for the first time. Monsanto and Novartis are marketing
transgenic crops that produce insecticide in every cell of each plant. A
growing body of scientific evidence points to the likelihood of creating
"super bugs" resistant to the effects of the new pesticide-producing
genetic crops.

Some ecologists warn of the danger of what they call "gene flow"--the
transfer of transgenic genes from crops to weedy relatives by way of
cross-pollination. New studies have shown that transgenic genes for
herbicide tolerance and pest and viral resistance can spread by way of
pollen and insert themselves into the genomes of relatives, creating
weeds that are resistant to herbicides, pests and viruses.

The insurance industry has quietly let it be known that while it will
provide coverage for negligence and short-term damage resulting from the
introduction of genetically engineered crops into the environment, it
will not offer liability coverage for long-term catastrophic
environmental damage because the industry lacks a risk assessment
science--a predictive ecology--with which to judge the risks.

The industry understands the Kafkaesque implications of a government
regime claiming to regulate the new field of biotechnology in the
absence of clear scientific knowledge of how genetically modified
organisms interact once introduced into the environment. Who, then, will
be held liable for losses if a transgenic plant introduction were to
trigger genetic pollution over an extended terrain for an indefinite
period of time? The life science companies? The government?

The introduction of novel genetically engineered organisms also raises a
number of serious human health issues that have yet to be resolved. Most
of these new crops contain genes from non-food-source organisms. With 2
percent of adults and 8 percent of children having allergic responses to
commonly eaten foods, consumer advocates argue that all novel
gene-spliced foods need to be properly labeled so that consumers can
avoid health risks.

The British Medical Association has become so concerned about the
potential health effects of consuming genetically modified foods that it
has just called for an open-ended moratorium on the commercial planting
of genetically engineered food crops until a scientific consensus
emerges on their safety. And the European Commission recently announced
a freeze on licenses for genetically engineered plants after learning
about the monarch butterfly study.

A worldwide moratorium should be declared now on releasing genetically
engineered food crops and other gene-spliced organisms into the
environment pending further study of the potential environmental and
health risks and liability issues at stake. It would be irresponsible
and foolish to continue seeding farmland with genetically engineered
food crops when we have yet to develop even a rudimentary risk
assessment science by which to regulate these new agricultural products.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Church of Euthanasia                churchofeuthanasia.org
P.O.Box 261                         ftp.etext.org /pub/Zines/Snuffit
Somerville, MA 02143                        coe@netcom.com