Page 6

[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 (25-29). 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 years, especially in certain soils and marine sediments. (30) 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. (6,30) Furthermore, xenobiotics, especially dioxins and various agrochemicals, can act as mutagens (31), 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. 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 been provided by industry, nor requested by regulatory authorities. (32)

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 it is not already to late to control genetic pollution, 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.

Postscript

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 allergen city and possible toxicity of GM foods. This statement included the following points concern:

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

Adverse effects are likely to be irreversible; once GMO's are released into the environment they cannot be subject to control.

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 use to evade this biological fact."

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 food products.
• Careful consideration needs to be given to the effect of GMO's 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 need to be comprehensively assessed to determine their risks.

Reference

Dangers of GE Foods & Crops--Dr. Michael Fox References are available upon request, from hsus.org)

WILL GENETICALLY ENGINEERED CROPS MEAN ADULTERATED AND TOXIC FOOD, BODIES, AND ECOSYSTEMS? By Dr. Michael W. Fox, Senior Scholar/ Bioethics The Humane Society of the United States 2100 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20037

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