Ethics and Genetic Engineering

Sean McDonagh SSC.

The May 22, 2005 issue of the The Independent on Sunday carried a front page story about experiments conducted by the giant agribusiness Monsanto which involved feeding GM corn to rats. The research showed that : rats fed with a diet rich in genetically engineered corn (GE) development abnormalities to internal organs and changes to their blood. These rats had smaller kidneys and variations in the composition of their blood. According to the leaked 1,130 page confidential report, these health problems were absent from another batch of rodents fed non-GM food as part of the research.

Dr. Vyvyan Howard, a senior lecturer on human anatomy at Liverpool University called for the publication of the full study and he believed there was a prima facie cause for concern. Another expert in molecular genetics, Dr. Michael Antoniu, of Guy's Hospital Medical School described the findings as, very worrying from a medical point of view. He added, I am amazed at the number of significant differences they found (in the rat experiment).

Predictably Monsanto dismissed their own research on the abnormalities in rats as meaningless and, possibly, due to chance. However, those who have opposed the deliberation release of genetically engineered plants for health and environmental reasons will feel vindicated. They are adamant that sufficient research has not been carried out on the potential health risks involved in eating genetically engineered food. They are also quite critical of governments and regulator/ agencies for not insisting on rigorous independent testing of every genetically engineered product. Until the health status of GE food is clear the precautionary principle cautions against commercial planting and consumption by humans.

These current findings vindicate the research and integrity of Dr. Arpad Pusztai. In my book Patenting Life? Stop! I described what happened to Dr. Pusztai in 1997. He was born in Hungary and escaped to Britain after the failed revolution in 1956. He received his doctorate in biochemistry and began working at the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen, Scotland. He spent 37 years working there and was recognised as a world expert on lectin research. In the intervening years he published many books and articles. In 1996 Dr. Pusztai was funded by the Scottish Office to design feeding trials for CE crops. He fed GE potatoes to rats. Within 10 days he found major adverse effects of the GE potatoes on the rats. There were changes in their kidneys, thymus, spleen and guts. In the light of these findings Dr. Pusztai called for more targeted research to see whether it was the GE factor that was causing the problem.

With permission from the Rowett Institute he appeared on a popular BBC Television show The World in Action. He explained that his research had highlighted the need for a case-by-case testing of all GE food. The interview went so well that the Director of the Institute, Professor Philip James, phoned Dr. Pusztai's wife, herself a scientist, to congratulate her on the way her husband had explained complex scientific data in language that could be understood by lay people.

What followed was bizarre and frightening for those who value independent science, free speech and public health. Dr. Pusztai was suspended from his job, his phone calls were redirected to the director's office and his emails were intercepted. Professor James threatened Pusztai with legal sanctions if he spoke about his work to anyone outside the institute. When the Rowett Institute finally got around to auditing Dr. Pusztai's work none of the nutritionists at the Institute were appointed to the audit committee. Most amazing of all Dr. Pusztai was not allowed to explain his work to the committee and challenge his detractors.

Dr. Pusztai believes that he was sacked at the behest of the biotech industry. In the interview with Geoffrey Lean in The Independent on Sunday (May 22nd 2005, page 6 and 7) Dr. Pusztai maintains that;

1

his trouble had started with a phone call to his employers, the Rowett Research Institute, from (10) Downing Street (This is the residence of the British Prime Minister). The journalist reminds the readers that, Prime Minister Blair had put his full weight behind modified food, letting it be known that he would happily eat them himself. In a more sinister move, Jack Cunningham, then in charge of the Government's GM strategy, announced that Dr. Pusztai had been “comprehensively discredited”. His offiice drew up plans - revealed in The Independent on Sunday - to enlist “eminent scientists” to attack him (Dr. Pusztai) and “trail the Govemment's key message”. Worse, the Government refused to undertake the normal scientific process of repeating Dr. Pusztai's experiment in order either to confirm or disprove his findings. Top officials at the then Ministry of Agriculture told me (Lean) that it would be “wrong” “immoral” and “a waste of money” to do so - an extraordinary attitude given the potential threat to public health, should he be right.

As the controversy raged about the sacking of Dr. Pusztai, Christopher Leake of The Mail (February, 14, 1999) reported that the Rowett Institute had received a £140,000 grant from Monsanto1.

One would expect that Prime Minister Blair and the various agencies of the British Government would be grateful to Dr. Pusztai for highlighting problems that could have enormous negative impact on the health of British citizens. Instead, it would appear that the government put the commercial interest of transnational corporations ahead of the common good of their citizens. They did not schedule new trials to test Dr. Pusztai's results. Even today, with this new information on the potential risks from GE corn, they have not insisted that Monsanto publish the full dossier containing their recent research. Monsanto, or any other company, should not be allowed to cite commercial secrecy legislation in order to hide data that may be vitally important to the well-being of the public. Citizens in every country in the world need to be vigilant and challenge their government's record on genetically engineered food.

Is it any wonder that many people feel that the dangers posed by the tidal wave of biotechnological products are real and that there should we a worldwide moratorium on the deliberate release of genetically engineered organisms until the current technology is safer and independent research and agencies are available to verify this. At the moment they are not too sure that the research agencies and politicians who should be acting in the interests of the common good are not wedded to the vested interests of the biotech industry.

In November 2005 scientists at the government sponsored research centre Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) in Australia abandoned a 10 year long research into genetically engineered peas after tests showed that the modified peas caused inflammation in the lung tissue of mice. 2If as is happening more and more the research was conducted in Third World countries which have limited research facilities this pea genetically modified to resist insects would have gone ahead. This is the real worry for those who are critical of GE technology.

GMO soy affects posterity

On October 10, 2005 during a seminar on genetic modification organized by the National Association for Genetic Security (NAGS) Irina Ermakova, who has a doctorate in biology, made public the results of research which she had been conducting at the Institute of Higher Nervous Activity and Neurophysiology of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS). This is the first research that determined some clear relationship between eating genetically modified soya and the posterity of living creatures.

1 Christopher Leake, “Gene Lab Took Food Giant's Cash Gift”, The Mail, February 14, 1999, pages 1 and 5.2 Selina Mitchell and Leigh Dayton, “GM crops scrapped as mice made ill”. The Australian, Friday November 18, 2005, page 3.

2

During the experiment Ermakova added GM soya flour to the food of female rates two weeks before conception, during conception and during nurturing. In the control group were the female rats who received no additions to their food. The experiment was formed by 3 groups of rats with 3 female rats in each group. The first group was the control group; the second group was the one where the rats received an addition of GM soy, and the third group received non-GM soy. The scientists counted the number of females who gave birth, the number of rats born and the number of rats that died. The researchers found that there was an. abnormally high level of deaths among rats that were born to females who had received GM soy in their food – 55% as against 9% in the control group. In addition 36% of rats born to such mothers weighed less than 20 grams. In other words they were in an extremely poor condition.

Because the morphology and biochemical structures of rats are similar to humans this makes the results very disturbing according to Dr. Ermakova. It also places an onus on public authorities to engage in full scale tests of GM-products before they are made available to human beings or animals that humans will eat3.

Some of the other risks to human health and the environment include the potential to cause more allergies; an increase in antibiotic resistance.

Allergies

It is well-known that allergies in humans are caused by particular proteins. Genetic engineering involves adding new proteins to altered products. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the United States warned that new proteins in food might cause allergic reactions in some people. People with food sensitivities and intolerances could be at risk from genetically engineered food. Because of the lack of labeling these people could be under risk without even knowing it. It is possible, for example, to transfer a gene of one of the many allergenic proteins found in milk into vegetables, like carrots. People who ought to avoid milk might not be aware that the transgenic carrots they are buying contains milk proteins.

It is important to emphasize that this problem is unique to genetic engineering. Genetic engineering routinely moves proteins into the food supply from organisms that have never been consumed as food by humans or our close cousins on the tree of life.

Research which took place a number of years ago should alert the public to the possibility of an increase in allergenicity as a result of genetic engineering. A study by scientists at the University of Nebraska found that soybeans genetically engineered to Brazil-nut proteins caused reaction in individuals allergic to Brazil nuts. Blood serum from people known to be allergic to Brazin nuts was tested for the appropriate antibody response to the gene transferred to the soybean. When 7 out of 9 volunteers responded to the genetically engineered soybeans, the researchers concluded that the allergenicity had been transferred with the transferred gene. Someone who was allergic to peanuts and who ate a food that contained peanut protein could suffer from a fatal allergic reaction4.

It is important to remember that scientists have a limited ability to predict whether a particular protein will be a food allergen if consumed by humans. The only sure way to determine whether a protein will be an allergen is through experience. Therefore importing proteins, particularly from non-food sources, is always a gamble from the point of view of allergenicity.

3 Genetically modified soy affects posterity: Results of Russian scientists' studies. www.gmwatch.org 11/08/20054 Celia Dean-Drummond, Theology and Biotechnology, Geoffrey Chapman, London, page 86.

3

Furthermore, it has been generally recognized that there has been a significant rise in allergies during the past few decades. With over 8% of children showing, allergic reactions to many commonly eaten foods, it seems foolish in the extreme to do anything that might increase allergenicity.

Antibiotic Resistance

Genetic engineering often uses genes for antibiotic resistance as 'selectable' markers. These are used to determine which cells have taken up the foreign genes. Although they have no further use, the genes continue to be expressed in the plant tissue. Most genetically engineered food plants carry fully functioning antibiotic resistant genes. The most common used genes are the npt 11 gene that confers resistance to kamamycin, neomycin and geneticin and the bla gene that confers resistance to ampicillin.

The presence of antibiotic genes could have two harmful effects. First, eating these foods could reduce the effectiveness of antibiotics that are taken with such a meal. Antibiotic resistant genes produce enzymes that can degrade antibiotics. It a tomato which an antibiotic resistant gene is eaten at the same time as an antibiotic, it could destroy the antibiotic in the stomach. Second, the resistant genes could be transferred to human or animal pathogens, making them impervious to antibiotics. It transfer were to occur, it could aggravate that already serious health problem of antibiotic-resistant diseases organisms or Super Bugs.

It has been claimed that unmediated transfer of genetic material from plants to bacteria is highly unlikely. But even a slight risk of this happening ought to require careful scrutiny in the light of the seriousness of antibiotic, resistance in the population at large. Antibiotic resistant marker genes from GE plants have been found to transfer horizontally to soil bacterial and fungi in the laboratory. Field tests revealed that GE sugar beet DNA persisted in the soil for up to two years after the GE crop was planted5.

In July 2002 research by British scientists at the University of Newcastle commissioned by the UK's Food Standards Agency (FSA) found that genes from antibiotic-resistant genes had found their way into the human gut. The scientists took seven volunteers who had their lower intestine removed and werer now using colostomy bags. The volunteers were given a burger with GE soya and a milkshake. Researchers compared their stools with twelve people with normal stomachs. The researchers found to their surprise that a relatively large proportion of genetically engineered DNA survived the passage through the small bowel. The researchers showed that no GE material survived the passage through the entire human digestive track. Nevertheless, the fact that antibiotic resistant marker genes were identified for the first time in the human gut, something the proponents of GE food said could not happen, has given rise to a genuine fear that this could compromise antibiotic resistance in the population at large. The fact that gut bacteria had taken up transgenetic DNA is a cause for concern6.

In a lecture to scientists in New Delhi on November 7, 2005 Dr. Arpad Pusztai summed up the position on the potential dangers to human health from GE crops. He claimed that so far only a few animal studies had been completed. He alleged that the industry's and regulator's preferred “safety assessment” are based on poorly defined and not legally binding concept of “substantial equivalence”. In such a situation it is difficult to conclude that GM foods are safe7.

The well known Canadian scientist and broadcaster, David Suzuki takes the same approach. In April 2005 he told journalists that, anyone that says “Oh, we know that this is perfectly safe,” I say is either

5 A, Barrett, 2000, “GM Genes 'Jump' Species Barrier”. The Observer, May 28, 2000.6 Sean Poulter, “Can GM Food Make Your Body Immune to Antibiotics”. The Daily Mail, July 17, 20027Ashok B Sharma, “Are GM foods safe enough?” Financial Express, November 7, 2005. www.gmwatch.org> 11/11/2005

4

unbelievably stupid or deliberately lying. The reality is we don't know. The experiments simply haven't been done and we are now becoming the guinea pigs8.

GE Plants Pose a Danger to the Environment

Genes form a holistic system, with one gene affect multiple traits and multiple genes affecting on trait. Consequently, scientists cannot always predict how a single gene will be expressed in a new system. For example, splicing a gene for human growth hormones into mice produces a very large mice. Splicing the same gene into pigs produces skinny, cross-eyed and arthritic animals.

It is completely plausible that a new combination of traits produced as a result of genetic engineering might enable crops to thrive in an environment in which they would then be considered a weed. For example, if a rice plant engineered to be salt-tolerant, escapes into a marine estuary, it could cause enormous damage. The possibility of this happening increases as more and more genetically engineered organisms are released into the environment.

Biotech scientists and regulators often dismiss the possibility of genetically engineered crops becoming super weeds; they argue that most staple crops have been so weakened by the domestication process that the addition of an engineered trait will not enhance their competitiveness. While this might be true of crops like maize, other crops like alfafa, barley, potatoes, wheat, sorghum, broccoli, cabbage do retain their weedy traits.

Gene flow does take place

Biotech scientists also argued that “gene flow” which involves the transfer of genes from transgenic plants to a weedy relative, would seldom take place. Opponents, of genetic engineering have always argued that if a herbicide resistant gene jumped to a genetically engineered plant to a wild weedy relative, that plant might become resistant to the particular herbicide. This form of genetic pollution could easily become a major nuisance to farmers worldwide.

In July 2005 the British Government published on an obscure website details of how genes from a genetically engineered oilseed rape (Brassica napus) had transferred to wild relatives in farm trials. The study was conducted by the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, a government research centre at Winfrith in Dorset. The researcher found a GE version of the common weed charlock (Sinapis Arvensis) in a field where GE oilseed rape had been grown for the past two years. They also found that resistance was transferred to field mustard at a farm in Shropshire. The transfer to field mustard was always on the cards as they are close relatives but the transfer to charlock came as a surprise as it is only distantly related to oilseed rape. Charlock is also a very common plant so the fact that pesticide-resistant gene was passed to charlock is a cause for real concern. The fear now is that if GE oilseed rape is grown commercially pollen from contaminated plants could spread throughout the country leading to the growth of plants which are immune to certain herbicides. The danger is very real. In 2003 research conducted for the British government found that oilseed rape pollen could travel over 16 miles; this is 6 times what was previously believed. Furthermore, charlock seeds can remain in the ground for 20 to 30 years before they germinate.

According to English Nature, the government wildlife watchdog, a single herbicide resistant weed in several million could inexorably take over British farmlands. In such a scenario farmers would have to use more chemicals and more nasty ones to control the plant. This would contradict one of the arguments presented by those who favour GE plants that they involve the use of less pesticide.

8 Angela Hall, “Suzuki warns against hastily accepting GMOs”. The Leader-Post (Canada) April 26, 2005. www.gmwatch.org> 11/09/2005.

5

It would also mean that co-existence between GE and organic plants would be impossible in island countries like Britain, Ireland and the Philippines. Within a few years all the organic plants would be affected by GE pollen. This would have a devastating impact on conventional and organic farmers. Speaking at a seminar organised by Consumers International (CI) in Bologna, Italy, David Cuming advised: all countries worldwide must introduce strict rules to prevent contamination, and allow for GM-freed zones, before allowing GMOs in their countries. The EU must wait until they have completed the full review of 'coexistence ' in Europe before approving new GMO crops9.

At the same conference Professor lgnacio Chapela said that he believed that coexistence was biologically impossible. For him it is not a question whether it will happen, it is a question of when and how much. We do not have the political will, the technical capacity or the independence of thought to deal with “co-existence”, neither to monitor its development, nor to remedy its consequence. Proposed biosafety and bioethical frameworks will not prevent contamination10.

The above research also revealed a disturbing unwillingness on behalf of the British government to protect the British environment from genetic pollution. Despite the knowledge about the pollution of common charlock by GE oilseed rape the UK Environment Minister, Elliot Morley, attempted at the European Union earlier in July 2005 to get France and Greece to lift its ban on oilseed rape. The Minister justified his action by saying that he was voting in line with the best available scientific evidence despite the fact that his own department was in possession of data which confirmed the risk of genes escaping from GE oilseed rape. Hopefully, these findings will put the nail in the coffin of GE oilseed rape since previous government sponsored studies have found that it is seriously damaging to biodiversity.

Widespread Contamination of Papaya Crop by GE Varieties

Researchers in Hawaii in September 2004 reported widespread contamination of traditional stock from the world's first commercially planted genetically engineered tree, the papaya. This took place on Oahu, the large island and Kauai. Contamination was also found in the stock of non-genetically engineered seeds being sold commercially by the University of Hawaii. Dozens of outraged farmers, consumers and backyard growers brought the contaminated stock back to the university and demanded that the University of Hawaii come up with realistic plan for cleaning up this papaya contamination. The protesters also called for liability protection for local growers and the prevention of GMO contamination of other commodity crops which are grown in Hawaii11.

Speaking in New Delhi in November 2005 Dr. Arpad Pusztai pointed out that a review carried out by Wolfanberger and Phifer and published in Science in 2000 concluded that the most pertinent questions on the environmental safety of GM crops have not been asked for, let alone studied12.

9 www.gmwatch.org “coexistence impossible, Bologna conference told (9/9/2005)10 Ibid. 11 Hawaii Reports Widespread Contamination of Papaya Crop by GE Varieties, Organic Consumers Association. www.organicconsummers.org/biod/papaya090804.cfm 11.11.200512 Ashok B Sharma “Are GM foods safe enough?” Financial Express, November 7, 2005. www.gmwatch.org > 11/11/2005

6

Farewell to independent Science

Biotech companies are not happy when independent scientists point out the dangers of 'gene' flow. In November 2001 two scientists David Quist and lgnacio Chapela wrote an article in the journal Nature pointing out that though the Mexican government had banned Bt. Corn in Mexico some Bt. Corn food-aid from the US had been planted and had contaminated the local maize. Since Central America is the home of maize any genetic contamination there could have terrible consequence for this plant which is now one of the staple crop of the world. Under pressure from biotech companies the editor of Nature challenged Quist's and Chapela's research in March 2002. In April 2002 the executive director of Mexico's National Commission on Biodiversity, Jorge Soberon, agreed that Mexican government tests had confirmed that the scale of the contamination was much worse than originally believed. A total of 1,876 seeds from two states, Oaxaca and Puebla, were examined, and Mexican scientists found evidence of contamination at 95%. Mexican scientists are convinced that the seeds came from either Monsanto, Aventis, Sygenta, as all three use the cauliflower mosaic virus a promoter. However, Mexican scientists could not find out which of the companies were involved. The companies claimed commercial secrecy and refused to tell the Mexican authorities the relevant genetic information. Jorge Soberon found the company's behaviour irresponsible: I find it extremely difficult to accept this behaviour of the companies. How can you monitor what is going on if they do not allow you the information to do it13. Leaving aside the genetic disaster in this incident, the arrogance of the wealthy transnational corporations involved is mind-boggling. You must realise that these companies are so powerful, financially and politically, that they feel no moral obligations to share their knowledge with officials of a sovereign government in order to track and prevent a worse ecological disaster.

It is also very worrying that the editor of the prestigious magazine Nature 'sided with a vociferous minority in obfuscating the reality of the contamination of one of the world’s main crops with transgenic DNA of industrial origin14. In a letter to the Guardian the researcher in question, Ignacio H Chapela surmises: Perhaps the key lies in his tacit acknowledgment, albeit by dismissal, of the enormous pressure on anyone working in or around the biological sciences ever since we set on a collision course with commercial interests. He went on to sound a very chilling not about the future of science and the power of corporations to direct and manipulate research because they are funding it. The co-ordinated attempt to discredit our discoveries in the public piazza sends a chilling message to those who would dare ask important but uncomfortable questions and find their truthful answer. It is an assault on the very foundations of science15.

But corporate revenge did not stop there. Eight years later pressure from biotech companies on the University of California, Berkeley attempted to block Chapela getting tenure at the University. According to Chapela one reason he needed to be kicked out is that he opposed a $50million donation from the biotech company Novartis to the University on the understanding that the company was to fund one third of all the work in the department and get a first look at all the research papers. Chapel opposed this and dragged the University all the way to the Senate of California. The amount was reduced to $25 million.

Chapela claims that vast amount of money which the biotech industry is pouring into US Universities is altering the way biology is taught. He insists that no one would pursue the research he undertook in Mexico because they are afraid of the consequences. There is a growing understanding that universities have been hijacked and the whole science establishment has become vested in this project (genetic

13 Paul Brown, “Mexico's Vital Gene Reservoir Polluted by Modified Maize”, The Guardian, May 24, 2002, page 8.14 Ignacio Ha Chapela, Letters Column, The Guardian, May 24, 2002, page 815 lbid

7

engineering). Professors are now becoming entrepreneurs and students are becoming employees. Now you get asked how many patents you hold when you go for a job16.

One final but very important point which he makes is that those with this enormous, unaccountable power are for the most part anonymous. Because of a massive letters campaign, much of it on the internet, Chapela did get tenure.

Puzstai, and Chapel are not the only scientists being brushed aside by biotech business. Fred Kirschenmann, the Director of the Leopold Center at lowa State University has criticised and rigorously documented the environmental and social destruction brought about by industrial agriculture, including GE crops. In October 2005 he paid the price for such honesty. Without any prior consultation he was dismissed as Director of the Institute and 'kicked upstairs' into a non descript role as “distinguished fellow”17.

I am sure that none of us would like to be embroiled with these Czars of the biotech world whose main purpose is to make enormous amounts of money by cornering the staple foods of the world.

Unfortunately, as I made clear in my book Patenting Life? Stop! Government agencies often promote the vested interests of corporations rather than the wellbeing of their citizens. It was revealed in September 2004 that the former head of the FDA, Dr. Lester M. Crawford had sold shares in companies regulated by the agency in 200418. The new EPA head of research George M. Grey has had very close ties with the corporate world. He was involved with the Environmental Literacy Council (ELC), a non-profit agency funded by corporations with close links to the energy, chemical and defense industries19.

Biotech Abuses Nature

In 1997 I was a member of the Ethics Committee of the lrish Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). We had in front of us a report commissioned by the Marine Institute of lreland entitled, The Nature and Current Status of Transgenetic Atlantic Salmon. As a result of introducing growth hormone genes into a wild North Atlantic salmon the transgentic fish grew rapidly and reached enormous size. Studies showed that with a period of 14 months the transgenic fish was 37 times heavier than the ordinary wild salmon 20. Nobody would be looking for a steak from such a salmon in a restaurant but the producers of this creature would make huge profits in salmon dips etc. The cost to the salmon, of course, was horrendous. In technical, unemotional language the report noted that the experiment has produced, profound morphological abnormalities in the progeny of the transgenic salmon. These included a disproportionate growth of the head and operculum cartilage, disimproving appearance leading ultimately to respiratory problems21. In plain ordinary language what happened was that the experiment produced such p distortion to the physiognomy of the fish that it died a painful death because it could not breath. The report

16 John Vidal “Enemy of the State”. The Guardian, January 19, 2005. www.society.guardian.co.uk/19/01/2005>17 www.gmwatch.org > Seedy Business: A sustainable agriculture champion gets plowed under at Iowa State. (2/11/05). Page 1 of 5.18 Gardiner Harris, “Ex-Head of PDA or Wife Sold Stock in Regulated Area”, New York Times, October 27, 200S, www.nytimes.com/2005/10/27>19 Brendan Coyne, “New EPA Research Head Comes with Tight Corporate Ties”, The New Standard, October 6, 2005. www.gmwatch.org/11/08/05>20 T. F. Cross an P. T. Galvin, The Nature and Current Status of Transgenic Salmon. Dublin, Marine Institute, 1995, page 6.21 Ibid

8

recommended that permission should not be given to grow this in fish in lreland because of fears about genetically contaminating the north Atlantic Salmon. The report never raised the basic ethical question: Do Human Have the Right to Interfere in such an Intrusive and Destructive way in the genetic integrity of other creatures?

In October 2005 animal geneticists John Hodges warned his agriculture students in the University of Alberta that biotechnology, combined with capitalistic economics, are reshaping crops and livestock in way that will affect people and raise serious ethical issues.

Intensive production lines has already led to 45% of chicken breeds, 43% of horse breeds, 23% of pig breeds and 23% of cattle breeds facing extinction. As biotech gathers strength the future raises the spectre of poultry barns where chicken are grown with breaks and legs removed because they're useless bits. Or animals with adjusting skins and metabolism to enable them to grow in cold weather, thus eliminating heating costs. Or animals without gender. Hodges warned research is already poking into areas that raise disturbing questions about effects on man22.

The more serious ethical question is as follows: Is everything in creation just there for humankind? Do other creatures have intrinsic value in themselves which means that they must be respected and not seen merely as having instrumental value for us.

So that is where the biotech industry is and is moving. It is not a pleasant journey and when people get in the way they are merely brushed aside. However, when they are asked, why are you genetically engineering plants and animals their answer always is that they wish to feed the world. They sound not Iike the blood hounds who went after Chapela and his friends but paid up members of the most altruistic societies on earth.

Will biotech Food Feed the World?

In 1992 the then chief executive of Monsanto, Robert Shapiro, told the Harvard Business Review that genetically modified crops (GMOs) will be necessary to feed a growing world population.23 He predicted that, if population levels were to rise to 10 billion, humanity would face two options, either to open up new land for cultivation or increase crop yields. Since the first choice was not feasible, as we were already cultivating marginal land and in the process creating unprecedented levels of soil erosion, we would have to choose genetic engineering. He argued that this was merely a further improvement on the agricultural technologies that gave rise to the Green Revolution that saved Asia from food shortages in the 1960s and 1970s.

Critics of genetic engineering reject the argument that GMOS Will stave off global famine. They also question the accepted wisdom that the impact of the Green Revolution has been an entirely positive enterprise. The Green Revolution was based on producing hybrid seeds by crossing two genetically distant parents that produce increased yield in the offspring plant. Hybrid seeds are expensive and are heavily reliant on fertilizers and pesticides. They also lose their vigor after the first planting which means that the farmer is forced to purchase new seeds for each planting.

It is also important to remember that the Green Revolution is not simply a story about hybrid crops, irrigation systems, fertilizers and pesticides. John H. Perkins in. his book Geopolitics and the Green Revolution recounts the environmentally destructive and socially unjust aspect of the Green Revolution.

22 "Timothy Le Riche, “Geneticist warns and challenges students” Edmonton Sun, October 28, 2005. www.gmwatch.org > 11/05/2005, page 1 of l. 23 Robert Shapiro, "Growth Through Global Sustainability". Harvard Business Review, March 2, 1992, pages 79-88

9

One of the most important negative effects of the Green Revolution is that it has contributed to the loss of three quarters of the genetic diversity of major food crops and that the rate of erosion continues at close to 2 per cent per annum.24 The fundamental importance of genetic diversity is illustrated by the fact that when a virulent fungus began to destroy wheat fields in the United States (US) and Canada in 1950 plant breeders staved off disaster by cross-breeding five Mexican wheat varieties with 12 imported ones. In the process they created a new strain that was able to resist the so-called 'stem rust'. Had these varieties been lost it would have been catastrophe for wheat production globally.

In reality hunger and famine around the world have more to do with the absence of land reform, social equality, a bias against women farmers, a scarcity of cheap credit and basic agricultural tools than with a lack of agribusiness super-seeds. This fact was recognized by the participants who attended the World Food Summit in Rome in November 1996. People are hungry because they do not have access to food production processes or the money to buy food. Those who wish to banish hunger should address those social and economic inequalities that create poverty and not claim that a 'magic bullet' technology will solve all the problems.

Brazil, for example, is the third largest exporter of food in the world and yet one fifth of its population, over 30 million people, do not have enough food to eat. Clearly hunger is not due to a lack of food but it is caused by the unequal distribution of wealth and the fact that a huge number of people are landless.

Do the proponents of GE food think that agribusiness companies will distribute genetically engineered food free to the hungry poor who have no money? There was food in lreland during the famine in the 1840s but those who were starving did not have access to it or money to buy it.

My experience as a Columban missionary confirms this approach. I Iived in Mindanao in the Philippines during the El Nino-induced drought of 1983. There was a severe food shortage among the tribal people in the highlands. The drought destroyed their cereal crops and they could no longer harvest food in the tropical forest because it had been cleared during the previous decades. Even during the height of the drought an agribusiness corporation was exporting tropical fruit from the lowlands. There was sufficient rice and corn in the lowlands but the tribal people did not have the money to buy it. Had it not been for food-aid from non-Government organizations (NGOs) many of the tribal people would have starved.

Over the past five years the bulk of genetically engineered soya and corn has been fed to animals. If people in the First World and the elite in Third World countries continue to increase their consumption of meat the problem of hunger will be exacerbated not solved. In 1990 the World Food Program at Brown University calculated that if the world food harvest over the previous few years was distributed equitably to all the people of the world it could provide a vegetarian diet for over 6 billion people. In contrast, a meat-rich diet, favored by affluent countries and currently available to the global elite, could only manage to feed 2.6 billion people. Human society is going to be faced with the option of getting its protein from plants or animals. If we opt for animal protein it will mean a much less equitable world with increasing levels of human misery.25

Terminator Gene

The development by a Monsanto owned company of what is benignly called a Technology Protection System, but what is more aptly called 'terminator' technology, is another reason for asserting that the 'feed-

24 John H. Perkins, 1997, Geopolitics and the Green Revolution : Wheat, Genes and the Cold War, Oxford University Press, New York25 Now, It's Not Personal! But like it or not meat-eating is becoming a problem for everyone on the planet, editors. WorldWatch, July/August, 2004, page 13

10

the-world' argument is completely spurious.26 It is called the terminator technology because genetically engineered seeds which contain this gene produce sterile seeds after the first crop. Once again this forces farmers to return to the seed companies at the beginning of each planting season. This technology, if it becomes widespread, will have a deleterious impact on the 2 billion small, subsistence farmers who live mainly in the Third World. Sharing seeds among farmers has been at the very heart of subsistence farming since the domestication of staple food crops eleven thousand years ago. The terminator technology will lock farmers into a regime of buying genetically engineered seeds that are herbicide-tolerant and insect-resistant, copper-fastening them on to the chemical tread-mill. Patents have been taken out on terminator technology in the United States, Canada, Brazil, Japan, Europe and South Africa.

At an ethical level I suggest that a technology that, according to Professor Richard Lewontin of Harvard University, introduces a 'killer' transgene that prevents the germ of the harvested grain from developing must be considered a grossly immoral act.27 It is a sin against the poor, against previous generations who freely shared their knowledge of plant life with us, against nature itself and, finally against the God of all creativity. To deliberately set out to create seeds that self-destruct is an abomination that no civilised society should tolerate. Furthermore, if anything goes wrong the terminator genes could spread to neighbouring crops and with and weedy relatives of the plant that has been engineered to commit suicide. This would jeopardize the food security of many poor people.

Scientist disputes the claim that GMO gives higher yield.

Early in 2003 a researcher at the Institute of Development Studies at Sussex University published an analysis of the GMO crops which biotech companies are developing for Africa. Among the plants studied by the researcher, Aaron deGrassi, were cotton, maize and sweet potato. He discovered that conventional breeding procedures and good ecological management produced a far higher yield at a fraction of the cost. The GMO research on sweet potato is now approaching its 12 th year and has involved the work of 19 scientists. To date it has cost $6 million. Results indicated that yield has increased by 18 percent. On the other hand conventional sweet potato breeding working with a small budget has produced a virus-resistant variety with a 100 percent yield increase.28

An article in Nature in August 2000 reported the results of one of the biggest experiments every conducted. A team of Chinese scientists tested a key principle of modern rice-grown - planting a single, high-tech variety across hundreds of hectares - against the much older technique which involved planting several breeds in one field. They found to the astonishment of all, because even the farmers had been subjected to the claims of conventional and GM agriculture, that reverting to the older methods resulted in spectacular increases in yield. Rice blast - a devastating fungus which normally requires repeated applications of herbicide to control also decreased by 94%.29

Professor Jules Pretty of Essex University has shown how farmers in India, Kenya, Brazil, Guatemala and Honduras have doubled and tripled their yields by switching to organic or semi-organic techniques.

Dr. Colin Tudge, Research Fellow at the London School of Economic, three times author of the Science Writer of the Year Award and the author of the insightful book on agriculture So Shall They Reap (Penguin) makes the same point. He writes, tropical soils are extremely variable and often poor, and

26 Brittenden. Wayne: "Terminator' seeds threaten a barren future for farmers", The Independent, March 22, 1998; page 327 Jean-Pierre Berlan and Richard C Lewontin, "It's business as usual", The Guardian, February 22, 1999, page 14.28 George Monbiot, “Force-fed a diet of hype", The Guardian, October , 2003, page 25 29 Colin Tudge, "What matters more than anything else is agriculture", New Statesman, July 1l, 2005. www.gmwatch.org > 22/l0/2005

11

tropical climates are fickle and extreme: traditional farming typically and subtly copes with both. In contrast, he writes, the industralization of farming can pay its way only through mass production, and that means monoculture - highly precarious and potentially disastrous.30

Claims that GMOs lead to fewer chemicals in agriculture, are also being challenged.

A comprehensive study using US government data on the use of chemicals on GE crops as carried out by Charles Benbrook. He is head of Northwest Science and Environment Policy at Sandpoint, Idaho. He found that when GMOS were first introduced they needed 25 percent fewer chemicals for the first three years. In 2001, 5 percent more chemicals were sprayed compared to conventional crop varieties. Dr. Benbrook stated that: the proponents of biotechnology claim GMO varieties substantially reduce pesticide use. While true in the first few year of widespread planting ….... it is not the case now. There's now clear evidence that the average pound of herbicide applied per acre planted to herbicide tolerant varieties have increased compared to the first few years.31

Between November 27th and December 9th 2005 Dr. Charles Benbrook toured Australia warning, farmers that, Australian agriculture faces losing its international status as 'clean and green' if it ignores the food safety, environmental and economic costs associated with today’s GE crop technology. He reported that, across the southeastern U.S. where soybean and cotton farmers have relied almost exclusively on GE technology for several years the system is on the brink of collapse, the volume of herbicide used is setting new records and farmers' profit margins are shrinking.32

The moral case against GE food is overwhelming. Governments are not acting because in most situations they in the pockets of extraordinary powerful transnational corporations. The precautionary principle should dictate the no more GE products are released into the environment until sufficient research has been completely to ensure the safety of the foods.

I include one articulation of the precautionary, principle in Patenting Life? Stop! on page 170. It emerged from a meeting of activists, scholars, and lawyers at a meeting in Wingspread, in Wisconsin in 1998. This Wingspread definition of principle contains three important elements: the threat of harm, scientific uncertainty and preventative precautionary action. It reads: When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context the proponents of an activity rather than the opponents should bear the burden of proof. This process of applying the precautionary principle must be open, informed and democratic and must include potentially affected parties. It must also involve an examination of the full range of alternatives, including no action at all.33

Catholic moral theology has always promoted the virtue of prudence. This has often been seen as merely playing safe. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Prudence allows to discern what constitutes the common good in a given situation..... Prudence not only helps us identity the principles at stake in a given issue, but also moves us to adopt course of action to protect the common good. Prudence is not, as popularly thought, simply a cautious and safe approach to decisions. Rather, it is a thoughtful, deliberate, and reasoned basis for taking or avoiding actions to achieve a moral good. It has a crucial role to stay in challenge GE food at this point in time.

30 George Monbiot, “Organic Fanning Will Feed the World”. The Guardian, August 24, 2000. www.monbiot.com/dsp_article.cfm?article_id+150> page 1 of 231John Vidal, “GM crops linked to rise in pesticide use”, The Guardian, January 8, 2004, page 5 32 “GE Crops will harm Australia warns US expert”, www.gmwatch.org 25/1 l/2005, New Media Alert. www.johnson/dn.org.conference/precautionary/ page 2.33 Sean McDonagh, 2003, Patenting Life? Stop!, Dominican Publications. Dublin, page 19

12

Don't Patent Life

Finally, in the current situation promoting GMOS also means supporting the patenting of living organisms - both crops and animals. I find it difficult to square the support which Cardinal Renato Martino, Prefect of the Pontifical Council for, Justice and Peace, seems to be giving to GMOS with the Catholic Church's strong pro-life position. In my book Patenting Life? Stop! I argue that, patenting life is a fundamental attack on the understanding of life as interconnected, mutually dependent and a gift of God to be shared with everyone. Patenting opts for an atomized, isolated understanding of life. This is at variance with the Judeo-Christian conviction that freedom, openness and possibility are the hallmarks of life in God’s creation. 34

The Indian scientist and activist, Dr. Vandana Shiva, believes that patented crops will lead to food dictatorship by a handful of northern transnational corporation.35 An example of this has already occurred. In September 2004 researches from the International Rice Genome Sequencing Project (IRGSP) announced that they had completed sequencing the rice genome. This is the first time a crop plant has been sequenced and it is very important as rice is a staple of one third of the world's population. That very week the giant Swiss biotech company Syngenta filed 15 global patents which will in essence give this company control over rice research for twenty years if the patents are granted.

This is why patents are so pernicious. Morally they are like slavery; there is no good form of slavery, however benign the regime might be. Patents on living organisms are only of recent origin. They were allowed by a single vote in the US Supreme Court in June 1980 Diamond versus Charkravarty. This judicial decision is at variance with every moral, cultural and religious tradition. This decision which was never discussed by any Parliament was globalized by the biotech corporations in the Uruguay Round of GATT (The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, (TRIPS 27.3.b). Patenting food crops allow companies like Syngenta to claim that they invented over 30,000 gene sequences in rice. It also allows them to pirate multiple variety of rice. It is larceny of a high order and is certainly a recipe for hunger and starvation. Surely it is in conflict with Catholic Social Teaching on food and agriculture. I deal with this at length in chapter 6 of my bock Patenting Life? Stop! Is Corporate Geed Forcing Us To Eat Genetically Engineered Food? This is where I agree very much with Colin Tudge whom I quoted earlier on. He writes, we should object to GMOS not primarily for reasons of health or environment, but because of economics and politics, their introduction suppresses local production and increases the dependency of poor countries on those who supply the new technologies.36

Finally, as part of his message for World Food Day on October 29, 2005, Pope Benedict XVI emphasized the need to preserve diverse crops and argued against monopoly control of different food products. This could be interpreted as a caution against an overly energetic development of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) for agricultural purposes.37

Fr. Sean McDonagh is a Columban missionary priest. He spent many years working as a missionary in the Philippines. He is author of numerous books on ecology and religion including Patenting Life? Stop! Will Corporate Greed Force Us to Eat Genetically Engineered Food?2003, Dominican Publications, Dublin. His latest book The Death of Life: The Horror of Extinction was published by Columba Pub!ications (Dublin) in 2004.

34 Sean McDonagh, 2003, Patenting Life? Stop!, Dominican Publications. Dublin, page 1935 Vandana Shiva, “Food Democracy: The politics of genetically modified food", www.zmagsit.zmag.org/April 200536 Colin Tudge, "What matters more than anything is agriculture", The New Statesman, July 11, 2005, www.gmwatch.org > 22/l0/2005.37 Pope urges preserving diversity in food production (Catholic World News) 15/10/04

13

14