Home : Science and Technology : The Environment
By Alan Durant
March 2000
Genetic engineering has come upon the world with a rush,accompanied by the usual claims of being a way of feeding the earth'spoor and removing want. However these claims need to examined in thelight of what has actually been done to date, and what is planned forthe future. In fact the impetus for the development of geneticengineering, namely the rapid pursuit of maximum profits and futhercontrol of world agriculture runs counter to the stated aims as wellas encouraging unsafe science.
Why are such risks being taken? They are being taken in the nameof short term profits and market domination. Much genetic engineeringis linked to producing crops resistant to specific brands ofherbicide e.g. Monsanto's Roundup, which has been implicated inclaims of raised hormone levels in people.
The change is already here with no public consultation. In 1997,15% of the U.S. soybean crop was grown from genetically modified (GM)seed. By this year if the Monsanto Corporation's timetable unfolds onschedule, 100% of the U.S. soybean crop (60 million acres) will begenetically engineered. Other food crops such as cotton, corn,potatoes, tomatoes and other food crops are lagging only slightlybehind. This poses a real threat to food supplies and health.
It is often argued by proponents of GM that it is only acontinuation of what has been historically been done. Although a formof genetic engineering of food crops and animals has long beenpractised, through the process of selective breeding, now we havetaken a leap "forward" by incorporating genetic material from onespecies into another to give new traits to the recipient. Scientistshave altered foods by inserting into them genes from bacteria andviruses. Many more such products containing DNA from insects, fishand even humans are being researched and soon will be headed for ourdinner plates. Foods altered through genetic engineering oftencontain proteins and other components that have never before beenpart of the human diet. The process of putting alien genes intoplants and animals to favour certain traits or to confer resistanceis at best an inexact science with unpredictable results. Genes don'tnecessarily control a single trait. A gene may control severaldifferent traits in a plant. Without careful study, plants withundesirable characteristics may be released into the globalecosystem.
One of the excuses for this head long rush into geneticengineering is the claim that it will enable us to feed the world.However, neither Monsanto nor any of the other genetic engineeringcompanies appears to be developing genetically engineered crops thatmight solve global food shortages. Quite the opposite.
If genetically engineered crops were aimed at feeding the hungry,the Monsanto and the others would be developing seeds with certainpredictable characteristics:
The new genetically engineered seeds require high-quality soils,enormous investment in machinery, and increased use of chemicals.There is evidence that their per-acre yields are about 10% lower thantraditional varieties (at least in the case of soybeans), and theyproduce crops largely intended as feed for meat animals, not toprovide protein for people.
The genetic engineering revolution has nothing to do with feedingthe world's hungry. The plain fact is that fully two-thirds of thegenetically engineered crops now available, or in development, aredesigned specifically to increase the sale of pesticides produced bythe companies that are selling the genetically engineered seeds. Agood example of this are Monsanto's round up ready crops. Monsanto'spatent on Rounup runs out in the year 2000, but any farmer who adoptsRoundup Ready seeds must agree to buy only Monsanto's brand ofRoundup herbicide. The farmer gains a $20 per acre cost-saving(compared to older techniques that relied on lesser quantities ofmore expensive chemicals), but the ecosystem receives much moreRoundup than formerly. To make Roundup Ready Technology legal, the USEvironmental Protection Agency had to accommodate Monsanto bytripling the allowable residues of Roundup that can remain on thecrop. This increase of chemicals used on crops can lead to thedevelopment of resistance in insect pests, and knock on effects tothe wider ecosystem. It is possible that resistance will reach such alevel that these chemicals which world farming rely on will becomeuseless.
There are other risks involved with genetic engineering. Genes cantravel to nearby, related plants on their own. This is called geneflow. In 1996 gene flow was discovered to be much more common thatpreviously thought. According to Science magazine, many ecologistssay it is only a matter of time before an engineered gene makes theleap to a weedy species, thus creating a new weed or invigorating anold one.
Most people are opposed to genetic engineering. A recent poll inThe Guardian found that 85% of people are wanted genetically modifiedfood separating from natural crops and 95% wanted this foodlabelling. Of course there is resistance to this because the GMcompanies believe correctly that the majority of people would not buyGM food if it were clearly labelled. In the U.S., every other foodcarries a label listing its important ingredients, with theremarkable exception of genetically engineered foods.
There is another side to this difficulty in identifying what hasbeen GM modified. If GM foods can not be identified this will preventepidemiologists from being able to trace health effects, should anyappear, because no one will know who has been exposed to novel geneproducts and who has not. This also applies to GM crops fed tolivestock.
The power that huge multinational companies like Monsanto wieldallows them to blackmail national governments, and this influence isgrowing.
Monsanto has spend upwards of $8.8 billion in recent years buyingnumerous U.S. seed companies. Two firms, Monsanto and Pioneer(recently purchased by DuPont), now dominate the U.S. seed business.
This monopolisation extends to effect the lives of us all,especially peasant farmers in the developing world. Monsanto plannedto introduce its genetically modified seeds accompanied by itspatented "technology protection system" which makes the seeds fromthis year's crop sterile. Critics call Monsanto's seed sterilisingtechnology "terminator" and "suicide seeds". Wherever suicide seedtechnology is adopted, farmers will have to go back to Monsanto yearafter year too buy new ration of genetically modified seeds.
"By peddling suicide seeds, the biotechnology multinationals willlock the world's poorest farmers into a new form of genetic serfdom",says Emma Must of the World Development Movement. "Currently 80 percent of crops in developing countries are grown using farm-savedseed. Being unable to save seeds from sterile crops could mean thedifference between surviving and going under", she says. "Moreprecisely", says Canadian journalist Gwynne Dyer, "it would speed theconsolidation of small farms into the hands of those with the moneyto engage in industrialised agribusiness - which generally meanshigher profits but less employment and lower yields.
According to the London Independent, the only major players stillsupporting GM foods in England are Monsanto Corporation and the Blairgovernment. Just a few months ago, British Prime Minister Tony Blairhad told members of parliament that opposition to GM foods would be"a flash in the pan". Now popular support for the Blair governmentitself has dwindled as opposition to GM foods has swelled. In hislast election, Mr. Blair was supported financially by Monsanto, theleading proponent of genetically modified crops.
Monsanto has admitted that no one knows - or can know - what willhappen when genetically modified organisms are put directly into thehuman food chain and are released into the natural environment, as isthe case with genetically modified crops. Robert Shapiro, the chiefexecutive officer of Monsanto, said October 28, 1998, "We don't seekcontroversy, but obviously it has been thrust on us. It is a direct consequence of a role we have chosen. And it is a role which we canblame only ourselves forÉ we realise that with any new and powerfultechnology with unknown, and to some degree unknowable - bydefinition - effects, then there necessarily will be an appropriatelevel at least, and maybe even more than that, of public debate andpublic interest."
Much genetic engineering is linked to producing crops resistant tospecific brands of herbicide e.g. Monsanto's Roundup, which has beenimplicated in claims of raised hormone levels in people. We can askourselves why are such risks being taken? They are being taken in thename of short term profits and market domination. Only when this isended can scientific advance generally benefit the mass of people.
From the British Marxist Magazine Socialist Appeal