|
|
Magazine Issue 2 - Winter 1996
|
||
 THE CAMPAIGN AGAINST GENETIC ENGINEERINGIt's food, Jim, but not as we know it... In the great global genetic experiment, which is being pursued by chemical and food multinationals in their search for greater profits, we - the consumers - are the guinea pigs. If we let them win their battle to force us to accept genetically engineered produce, reports Mark Lynas, the course of life on planet Earth may be changed for ever. In November 26 a crucial battle took place at Liverpool docks. As the Polish-registered ship Orletta Lwowskie waited to unload its cargo, Greenpeace activists locked on to the gates and ladders at the quayside, preventing the ship from docking. On board were 56,000 tons of genetically engineered soybeans, destined for the supermarket shelves of Britain. By the time you read this article, you may already have unknowingly consumed food which has been genetically engineered. Imports of transgenic 'Roundup Ready' soybeans from the United States will soon be arriving in quantities that Greenpeace will find it impossible to stop. And from the Liverpool dockside these innocent-looking beans will begin a journey which will take them into 60% of our foods. If we let this happen, the floodgates will open. Food manufacturers will race each other to bring in genetically altered corn, potatoes, rape seed and sugar beet, to name but a few. There will be potatoes which don't soak up fat in the chip pan, tomatoes which take longer to ripen on supermarket shelves - even corn which kills the caterpillar that feeds on it. The companies which win the biotech race could be looking at decades of healthy profits. But the consequences for the consumer - and the environment - are potentially catastrophic. The American organisation Global Alliance says: "There is no logical scientific justification for exposing society to this risk, nor is it necessary to take this risk for the purpose of feeding humanity. It is only of benefit to the biotech industry, which will obtain short term commercial gains at the expense of the health and safety of the whole population. Tampering with the genetic code of food is reckless and poses a serious threat to life." So what is wrong with genetically engineered food? Many in the chemicals and food industry argue that genetic engineering is no different from farmers' age-old traditional cross-breeding methods. Dr Michael Antoniou, a Senior Lecturer in Molecular Biology, wrote to the Independent to dispel this "common myth". He wrote: "In contrast to traditional methods, genetic engineering involves transfer of genetic material between totally unrelated organisms." This makes it not only unpredictable but can reduce the food's nutritional value and produce novel toxins and allergens. (Independent 29/9/96) Food fit for Frankenstein Such a "novel toxin" has already had tragic consequences. In 1988 the company Showa Denko K.K. put tryptophan (an amino acid) on the U.S. market as a food supplement. This tryptophan had been produced by fermentation using genetically engineered bacteria. The U.S. regulatory agency the Food and Drug Administration approved the product, arguing it was no different from ordinary tryptophan but, unfortunately, the bacteria also produced a toxic contaminant. Within three months, 37 people had died and 1500 had been left permanently disabled. It took months to trace the source of the poisoning - partly because the genetically engineered product had been sold unlabelled. Transgenic plants may also have a disastrous effect on the natural environment. They will shed pollen and fertilise related plants nearby, spreading the 'polluted' gene material irreversibly into other species. Scientists at the Scottish Crop Research Institute found that pollen escaping from fields of genetically engineered oilseed rape fertilised plants up to 2.5 kilometres away. Even more worrying, unrelated micro-organisms have been found to be able to incorporate the antibiotic resistance of transgenic crops into their own genes. This means pests or diseases could become resistant to all natural - or human - mechanisms for controlling them. 'Superweeds', in fact. Dr Frankenstein would have jumped for joy. No choice for consumers So what happened to consumer choice? You'd better ask Monsanto (see addresses opposite). This agrochemical multinational, based in the U.S., didn't trust consumers to buy its genetically modified 'Roundup Ready' soybeans without a fuss. So it made sure that distributors mixed them with natural soya straight after harvesting. No labels, no guarantees, nothing. Only 2% of soya arriving here will actually be transgenic, but who knows which foods will contain it? No-one - not even the food companies who will use it. Monopoly control Monsanto's scientists have succeeded in inserting genes from a cabbage virus, a soil bacteria and a petunia into the soybean DNA (the genetic code) making them resistant to Roundup - the world's best selling herbicide. Farmers can now spray the transgenic crop with Roundup - killing the weeds and sparing the beans, and locking those farmers into a cycle of dependence. Similarly, Swiss multinational Ciba-Geigy has manufactured a transgenic maize which produces a toxin to kill the common corn borer. The insecticidal gene came from the naturally-occurring soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). Unfortunately Bt is a valuable tool for organic farmers, and widespread use of the corn is likely to reduce its effectiveness as pests develop an increasing resistance. A cure for world hunger? At the recent World Food Summit in Rome, biotech companies aggressively pushed the notion that genetic engineering could somehow end world hunger. This is despite the fact that there is already enough in the world to feed its entire population. The Economist magazine reported: "Biotechnology may prove the means of closing the last part of the food gap." (Economist 16/11/96) "'Without biotechnology, we will be forced to exploit highly erodible farm and forest land,' said U.S. Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman, who headed the American delegation to Food Summit. 'If we don't use science as our friend, we will face hunger shortages 25 years from now that are far worse than anything we face today."' "A biologically developed 'super rice' can yield as much as 100 million more tons of rice per year than is currently grown in Asia," reported the Associated Press news agency during the Food Summit. (14/11/96). The US thinks biotech is a great idea - and (coincidentally) American companies will hold the patents, run the food trade, and manufacture the chemicals. Thankfully, a campaign against genetic engineering is now gathering force across the world. On October 7 over 300 consumer, health, farmer, and environmental organisations from 48 nations pledged to boycott Monsanto's 'Roundup Ready' soybeans. In the UK on December 14, activists from Greenpeace, the Women's Environmental Network, Earth First! and Reclaim the Streets will take part in an International Day of Action Against Genetic Engineering. Thousands have been writing letters to food companies and supermarket chains, asking them to pledge not to sell genetically engineered produce. Exports of soybeans from the United States have already reduced by some 10%. Surveys show that 85 - 90% of European consumers support clear labelling of genetically modified foodstuffs. But the big food manufacturers are still hedging their bets: "And while many companies are committed to the new products, the industry is concerned about starting off amid panic as environmental groups like Greenpeace fan consumer anxieties," reported the New York Times recently (New York Times 7/11/96). Let's get fanning those "consumer anxieties". There are dangerous times ahead. CORPORATIONS MONSANTO GREENPEACE |