Page 5

Thus, it is scientifically untenable to claim, as the biotechnology industry and regulatory agencies wish to do, that the rabbit hexokinase gene is no longer a rabbit gene once it is introduced into a tomato plant. No matter how many generations the rabbit hexokinase gene is propagated in tomatoes, the gene still corresponds in information content to the rabbit gene, and the catalytic and kinetic properties of the enzyme still correspond to those of rabbit hexokinase, and not tomato hexokinase. It may not be rabbit material, but it is still rabbit information.

Dr Fagan concludes that the arguments raised in the US Discussion Paper are not based on scientific fact. More to the point, purely scientific grounds are not even relevant to the issue of ethically and religiously based choices in food consumption. Setting aside arguments such as those discussed in [10] it is a simple fact that there exists a growing segment of the population that has ethical or religious beliefs that classify genetically engineered plants carrying animal or human genes as being unacceptable as foods. This situation is not the result of misunderstanding of the nature of recombinant DNA manipulations or of ignorance of the principles of modern biology. By and large, the segment of the population holding these beliefs is among the best educated. Lack of understanding of the technology cannot be used as an excuse for discounting the concerns of this group. A labelling policy that does not sincerely take into account the ethical and religious concerns of this growing segment of the population will not induce these individuals to ignore their beliefs and purchase plant-animal recombinant foods. Instead such a policy will cause them to restrict their food purchases even more stringently, and to promote reverse labeling, both of which are likely to impact negatively on the market share of genetically engineered foods.

Reference:

[10] A Science- Based, Precautionary Approach to The Labelling Of Genetically Engineered Foods, by John Fagan Ph.D.

Dangers of Genetically Engineered Foods

There is increasing scientific evidence agribiotechnology; and to apply the precautionary principle to this new technology. 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 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 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 food as being adulterated 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, the ecological consequences of which can be catastrophic (6).

[4] Milk from cows injected with r-BGH, 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 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 (20,21), should serve as a warning to us all of the potential risks of transgenic organisms serving 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 pleiotropic effects) have been well documented. Viral "promoters" and "enhancers" that boost expression of transgenic 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 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 affect 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).

[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 that was used as a promoter (and in many other transgenic crops), or to the active genetically spliced insecticidal lectins present in these G-E potatoes. Liver, brain, and heart sizes of the rats all decreased. (24)

[ Previous Page ] [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ]
[ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 9 ] [ 10 ] [ Next Page ]