Here are some of the more frequently asked questions about genetically
engineered food. If you have any further questions please feel free
to contact us. If we can't answer
your question we will put you in touch with someone who can. You might
also want to have a look at our links page, as
well as other pages on this site.
1. What is genetic engineering?
2. How is Genetic Engineering different to traditional selective breeding?
3. What are the risks associated with GE foods?
4. Won't scientific trials and government controls protect us?
5. How can I tell if I am buying GE foods?
6. What GE crops are currently grown in Australia?
7. Are Australian GE crops necessary to maintain market competitiveness?
8. What alternatives do we really have?
9. Who stands to gain if GE crops expand?
10. What can I do to stop the spread of GE crops and
foods?
1 Q What is genetic engineering?
A. Genetic engineering is the cutting and splicing of genes from a ësourceí to (an often completely unrelated) ëhostí organism. This allows scientists to alter the genetic ëblueprintí of the host organism. For example, human genes have been inserted into pigs to make them grow faster and leaner.
Genes are tiny units, found on strands of DNA within each living thing on earth including plants, animals and bacteria. Different combinations of genes form a unique blueprint for each organism. This genetic "blueprint" acts as a complex system of control which determines everything about the way a living thing grows (for example, its fertility, shape, colour, chemical properties such as pesticide tolerance etc).
Genetic engineering (GE) involves the isolation of specific genes from its source (bacterium, plant or animal) and their splicing into the DNA of ëhostí organism. This process allows genes of completely unrelated living things to be combined, aiming to see genetic traits of the ësourceí organism to be expressed in the host. Arctic fish "anti-freeze" genes have been introduced into tomatoes, crops such as soybeans, canola, corn, potato, sugarbeet and cotton have been engineered for herbicide or pesticide tolerance.
Once a foreign gene is introduced into an organismís DNA, it is then
passed on to future generations. If the general population is contaminated
by cross-pollination or breeding with the engineered crop or animal, the
foreign gene cannot then be removed.
2 Q How is Genetic Engineering different to traditional
selective
breeding?
A Genetic Engineering cuts and splices genes between completely unrelated living things, allowing combinations of genes which would never occur naturally. This can allow radical genetic mutations that cannot be removed from the organismís genetic blueprint.
Humans have been engaging in selective breeding for thousands of years.
This has produced more fertile grains, early fruiting
apples, new breeds of cattle etc. However this has only ever been possible
between closely related species or organisms. Traditional selective breeding
could not transgress natural reproductive barriers and so limited the potential
for radical mutations that can result from combining very different genes.
Scientists cannot predict exactly how engineered genes will recombine in the host organism. The GE process is still very imprecise; it is entirely possible that undesirable mutations will result. Importantly, it is impossible to say how engineered organisms will behave outside the laboratory or how we can prevent them from infiltrating other gene pools. Because there is so much uncertainty surrounding the whole GE process, insurance companies are refusing to insure engineered products.
3 Q What are the risks associated with GE foods?
A Risks associated with GE foods include damage to human health and that of our environment.
Human Health:
Mistakes made in genetic engineering have already proved fatal. Use of engineered bacteria in the food supplement Tryptothan caused 37 deaths in the USA since 1989, as well as permanently disabling at least 1500 people. A soybean engineered with Brazil nut genes was withdrawn after in-vitro and skin prick tests indicated that people with a Brazil nut allergy would have had an adverse, potentially fatal reaction to the soybeans.
Monsanto has genetically engineered ëRoundup Readyí soybeans which tolerate much greater herbicide spraying without themselves being killed. However consumers are then supplied with soybeans contaminated by toxic herbicide residues more than 20 times current levels (20mg/kg in Roundup Ready dry beans). Monsanto has requested permission for allowable levels of Roundup residue in soybeans to be increased by up to 200 times current limits; this huge increase in chemical use presents a significant health hazard in itself.
No long term testing of GE foods has been conducted on human health, but risks include increased immune deficiencies, new allergic reactions, new viruses, resistance to antibiotics, and other illness associated with higher chemical residues in our food (the result of increased spraying of herbicide and pesticide-resistant crops).
Environmental risk:
99% of existing GE crops have been engineered for herbicide tolerance, insect and/ or virus resistance. Greater quantities of herbicides can be used on herbicide-tolerant crops to kill weeds, without killing the crop itself. This encourages greater use of herbicides, which frequently pollute groundwater and can cause various other forms of ecological damage.
Crops such as Monsantoís Bt Cotton have been engineered to produce their own insecticide. The manufacturers claim that this will reduce pesticide use. However this presents its own problems as the Bt crops may also be toxic to non-target insects in the wild. Researchers from the Swiss Federal Research Station for Agroecology and Agriculture found over 60% mortality of green lacewings that ate moth larvae that had fed on Bt corn. As the effects of engineered crops travel through the food chain, we have no idea of how much disruption this will cause to natural ecosystems.
Perhaps the gravest concern associated with genetic engineering is gene pollution, or irreversible contamination of natural speciesí gene pools. If a genetically engineered organism breeds with a related natural species, the genetic contamination can never then be removed from the wild populationís gene pool. Where ëterminatorí technology has been used to render the GE crops sterile (forcing farmers to purchase a new supply of seed each year from the GE companies), this could cause sterility among contaminated non-GE plants.
If the gene for herbicide tolerance escapes into wild relatives of crop plants that are weeds, it could result in a new generation of herbicide-tolerant superweeds. This cross-contamination of natural and engineered plants has already occurred. Researchers in both Norway and the United States have found that the gene for herbicide tolerance moved from cultivated canola to close relatives in nearby fields, such as wild mustard. As tolerance to herbicides spreads through more non-crop communities, the need for farmers to use greater amounts of new herbicides can only increase.
4 Q Wonít scientific trials and government controls protect us?
A GE is an imprecise and poorly understood science. Trials are never exhaustive and have already failed to predict negative (even fatal) consequences of GE foods in the real world.
The Australian Government has to date established only very lax controls on GE crop establishment and has given no indication that it will insist on strict standards and compulsory labelling of GE food ó despite the fact that GE foods are already in your supermarket.
Scientific trials
Scientific trials of GE foods on animals have already failed to detect effects that are toxic (or even fatal) to humans. Furthermore, scientists working in a controlled laboratory are unable to predict the impacts of releasing GE organisms on the wider ecological environment.
Genetic coding within an organismís DNA is very complex. Even in very simple organisms such as bacteria, no one can possibly predict the effects of introducing new foreign genes, especially where the present imprecise GE technology introduces small imperfections in the genetic sequence. Dangerous problems can result because:
Government controls
The Australian federal government has given huge financial support to the biotechnology industry while failing to introduce a single regulation or control of this risky industry to date. The government appears impatient to follow the US pro-GE stance, oblivious to the significant opposition Europe and Japan (significant export destinations for Australian crops) have shown to GE foods.
Government controls on GE crop establishment and labelling of GE foods are at present very lax or non-existent, despite the fact that GE ingredients are increasingly (and invisibly) in our food. The earliest that we could expect to see compulsory labelling of GE foods is March 2001 - despite the fact that GE foods are already on our supermarket shelves. Furthermore, the government has not made a commitment to adopting strict standards for acceptable threshold levels. This means that companies whose products contain small amounts of GE ingredients may not have to declare them.
Present government discussion has entirely avoided addressing the huge risks that introduction of GE crops in Australia poses to our health, environment and economy. In fact, the federal government has shown reprehensible recklessness in its actions relating to GE crops, approving covert establishment of soy, canola and cotton crops without any attempt to legislate or control the industry to prevent cross-contamination with natural crops. GE crop establishment in Australia could seriously jeopardise many of our agricultural contracts won because we could guarantee that Australian produce was GE-free. Contamination with genetic pollution would be irreversible, and yet no firm policy - let alone legislation - exists on this issue.
In sharp contrast, however, the government has moved to fast track an
inquiry investigating a scheme for "controlling access to Australiaís
biological
and genetic natural resources", openly declaring its support for the
biotechnology
industry. "Access to biological and genetic resources is of strategic
importance
to Australiaís capacity to develop a biotechnology industry". Federal
legislation
to implement such a scheme could potentially guarantee corporate access
to Australiaís ëgenetic resourcesí even before the desirability of developing
an Australian biotechnology industry is appropriately ó and publicly ó
considered. Such ëaccessí would be irreversibly one way ó once genetic
pollution occurs, we cannot take it back.
5 Q How can I tell if I am buying GE foods?
A In the absence of compulsory labelling:
At the present time, only two Australian GE crops have been approved:
Roundup Ready soybeans and Ingard cotton (Monsanto has recently applied
for permission to introduce Bt cotton).
6 Q What GE crops are currently grown in Australia?
A Roundup Ready Soybeans
Ingard cotton
Canola (for rapeseed oil)
7 Q Are Australian GE crops necessary to maintain market competitiveness?
|
|
|
| GE crops have higher yields | Yields from GE crops are highly variable. For example, Australian GE cotton crops yield less than traditional varieties |
| GE crops are necessary as farm land is becoming scarcer and marginal land is required for cultivation | Cultivating marginal land will only increase the pace of degradation and exacerbate existing problems |
| GE crops are environmentally friendly as they require less chemical use | GE crops are often engineered to be herbicide or pesticide tolerant to allow for greater use of chemicals. Crops engineered to produce their own insecticide (such as Bt cotton) pose their own problems by poisoning non-target species, the soil etc. |
| GE crops are cheaper | No cheaper GE crops have yet been produced. Additionally, the terminator technology used means that farmers must purchase (sterile) seed each year |
| Existing agriculture cannot compete against GE technology | GE-free crops offer Australia an expanding export market. Potentially even more lucrative is Australiaís organics sector which is at risk from GE contamination |
8 Q What alternatives do we really have?
The organics industry is growing at 20-30% a year in the US, with demand far outstripping supply. Major supermarket chains in Australia such as Coles and Woolworths have introduced organic fruit and vegetable sections; international chains such as Sainsburyís, Iceland and Tesco offer organic alternatives for everything from packaged meat, bread, microwave pizza. As people everywhere become more aware about the hazards associated with conventional agriculture, organic alternatives are becoming increasingly attractive.
The risk of contamination to organic growers by GE crops is huge. Opinion
about how far crops must be separated to prevent gene-flow varies. At present,
no regulation exists to control where GE crops are being established. This
effectively compromises the future choice of any farmer to be GE-free and
risks irreversible genetic contamination of organic crops.
9 Q Who stands to gain if GE crops expand?
A The companies who patent them.
It is argued that GE crops offer benefits to farmers and consumers,
however these potential gains remain highly speculative. The risks associated
with GE technology are also controversial. However the irreversibility
of any negative consequences is such a serious matter than a precautious
approach must be the only sensible option. If we do not exercise caution
before rushing into the use of this poorly understood technology, we may
all stand to lose. The only people who will definitely gain as a result
of the expansion of GE technology are those who are selling it.
10 Q What can I do to stop the spread of GE crops and foods?
Scientists speak out on GE human health dangers:
Dr Joseph Cummins, Professor Emeritus of Genetics at the University of Western Ontario:
"Probably the greatest threat from genetically altered crops is the insertion of modified virus and insect virus genes into crops. It has been shown in the laboratory that genetic recombination will create highly virulent new viruses from such constructions. Certainly the widely used cauliflower mosaic virus is a potentially dangerous gene. It is a pararetrovirus meaning that it multiplies by making DNA from RNA messages. It is very similar to the Hepatitis B virus and related to HIV. Modified viruses could cause famine by destroying crops or cause human and animal diseases of tremendous power."
Professor Richard Lacey, microbiologist, medical doctor, and Professor of Food Safety at Leeds University (predictor of BSE/ 'Mad Cow Disease'):
"The fact is, it is virtually impossible to even conceive of a testing procedure to assess the health effects of genetically engineered foods when introduced into the food chain, nor is there any valid nutritional or public interest reason for their introduction."
Professor Dennis Parke, University of Surrey School of Biological Sciences, former chief advisor on food safety to Unilever Corporation and British advisor to the US FDA on safety aspects of biotechnology:
"In 1983, hundreds of people in Spain died after
consuming adulterated rapeseed oil. This adulterated rapeseed oil was not
toxic to rats"
References:
Iceland Frozen Foods plc (1999). "Important
information for our customers: Genetic modification of food and how it
affects you"
Australian Conservation Foundation
(1999). "Say "no!" to Gene Tech's bitter harvest". In Special Habitat
Supplement
Jean Halloran and Michael Hansen, Ph.D. (1998).
"Why We Need Labelling of Genetically Engineered Food". Consumer
Policy Institute/Consumers Union, United States
Australian Gene Ethics Network (1999).
"Mutant Soybeans, Yuk No! - Join the Boycott"
Australian Consumers' Association (1999).
"CHOICE Fact Sheet: Genetically modified foods".
The Natural Food Commission (1999), "Dangers
of Genetically Engineered Foods". The Natural Law Party, New Zealand
Environment Australia (2000), call for
submissions on "Inquiry into Access to Australiaís Biological Resources
in Commonwealth Areas". In The Saturday Mercury 15/1/00
Natural Food Commission (1999). "Fact sheet:
Eminent scientists comment on the dangers of genetically modified food".
The Natural Law Party, New Zealand