Leffler Professional Writing Services
The Genetically Engineered Harvest
Do Consumers Have the Right to Know What's in Their Food?
By Published in The Iowa Source, October 1997, pages 29-31.
Autumn in Iowa means a harvest of eleven million acres of corn. Native American words for corn translate as "our life," "it sustains us," and "giver of life." Yet the purity and healthfulness of corn, as well as all other food, is in question with the increased use of genetically engineered seeds. Scientists are altering the genetic code of food crops. These foods are slipping into the food supply without labels, bringing the possibilities of negative health and environmental side-effects. Without labeling, you have no way of knowing if you are eating such foods. Chances are, you are.
A Recent History
With our increasing understanding of genetics comes the natural urge to use this knowledge to solve problems and improve the quality of our lives. In the realm of food, genetic engineering companies have heralded this technology as the solution to world hunger, and the next revolution in agricultural technology. Through genetic engineering, biotechnology companies hope to make hardier plants that, for example, tolerate herbicides, produce their own insecticide, resist disease, taste better, or last longer.
The first commercial genetically engineered food, the Flavr Savr tomato, was introduced in 1992. The Flavr Savr tomato was genetically engineered to soften more slowly. Thus, the tomato could stay on the vine an extra week, giving it time to ripen before being shipped.
Since 1992, a trickle, a torrent, and now a flood of genetically engineered foods have been quietly introduced into the food supply. Nearly all the types of food you eat have been genetically altered in the laboratory: apples, barley, chestnuts, lettuce, melon, peppers, watermelons, walnuts, sunflowers, sugar cane, strawberries, rice, and so on. Some foods are now appearing on a dinner plate near you: corn, potatoes, soybeans, squash, tomatoes, papayas, canola, and much more. Every harvest, the list gets longer. Despite the potential benefits of genetic engineering, the long-term health effects from eating these new foods are still unknown.
The Nature of Genes
Genes are a very fine level of life. Genes contain the DNA that define the makeup of living beings. For example, your eye color, blood type, skin color, and even the shape of your ears are encoded on your genes. Maybe you have your grandmother's eyes, or your father's chin. In the same way, all living beings from the tiniest virus to the largest whale develop based on their genetic code.
In nature, plants and animals pass down genes to new generations through reproduction. Only closely-related species can be bred with each other. "In nature, insect genes cannot get into plants, bacterial genes cannot get into corn, and flounder genes cannot get into tomatoes," said Dr. John Fagan, a Cornell-trained molecular biologist. "Yet, with genetic engineering, all the natural barriers disappear and the biotechnologist is limited only by his or her imagination." In 1995, Dr. Fagan returned a $614,000 grant to the National Institutes of Health to raise awareness of the dangers of genetic engineering.
In the genetic engineering laboratory, scientists can seems to cross anything with anything. Let's say you wanted to make a tomato more resistant to freezing. Why not insert genes from a fish that can tolerate very cold temperatures, such as a flounder? Or, how about making a soybean that resists an herbicide by introducing genes from bacteria and viruses? All these and many more have been created in the laboratory. Last year, Roundup Ready® genetically altered soybeans, containing genes from bacteria and viruses, comprised 2% of the U.S. soybean harvest; this fall, they will make up 15%. And next year, the percentage is likely to increase again.
Safety Concerns
When people cross the boundaries between species to create new life forms, they are working from a new level of nature. The results cannot be fully predicted, and some scientists say the consequences could be disastrous. Among the safety concerns are allergens, toxins, genetic pollution, and resistance to herbicides and pesticides.
In Europe, consumers have already voiced opposition to genetically engineered foods. In spite of trade pressures, the European Union has issued a warning that it will not accept unlabelled genetically engineered imports from the United States. The American public has been largely uninformed about the issues, although some have begun to pressure the government to require labeling, provide better safety tests, and educate consumers more completely on the possible risks.
Food Allergies
Food allergies are a potentially lethal side-effect of genetic engineering. Food allergies occur when the body produces antibodies upon ingestion of a particular protein. This can result in mild to severe adverse reactions.
Some of the more common food allergies in the United States are allergies to milk, eggs, fish, tree nuts, wheat, soybeans, and peanuts. Genetically engineered foods containing genes from such common food allergens are required by the government to be labeled. No such foods have been brought to market.
According to Dr. Joe Cummins, Professor Emeritus of Genetics at the University of Western Ontario in Canada, people with the less common food allergies should completely avoid genetically engineered foods. "People who are hyperallergenic or environmentally sensitive should [also] avoid genetically engineered foods" he says, due to the possibility of untraceable allergic reactions. Dr. Jane Rissler, a senior staff scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington, D.C., offers this hypothetical example: If you were allergic to bananas, and you unknowingly ate a vegetable that had been genetically engineered to contain banana genes, you could have an allergic reaction as if you had eaten a banana. The banana proteins would be in disguise.
The New England Journal of Medicine printed an article on the transference an allergenic protein from Brazil nuts to genetically engineered soybeans. Pioneer Hi-bred inserted Brazil nut genes into soybeans in an attempt to balance the soybean's amino acid content for animal feed. Blood from those allergic to Brazil nuts reacted to the new soybean. The soybean was never commercialized because Pioneer could not guarantee the soybean would not be consumed by humans.
In the same issue of the Journal, editors expressed concern over rare allergies and proteins of unknown allergenicity: "Because FDA requirements [on labeling] do not apply to foods that are rarely allergenic or to donor organism of unknown allergenicity, the policy would appear to favor industry over consumer protection."
The government regulates these foods basically as they regulate most foods. They are treated as food additives. There are a few regulations, particularly when a pesticide is genetically engineered to be inside the food plant. Most genetically engineered foods are treated as being "substantially equivalent" to foods derived from cross-breeding and other natural methods. Substantial equivalency is a key focus for scientists and public interest groups that are urging the government to make safety the top priority.
Logically, if these foods were substantially equivalent, people with uncommon food allergies would not be at risk of reacting to these "disguised" foods. But, scientists point out, they are. A recent survey by Novartis, the largest genetic engineering company, indicated that 93 percent of Americans want genetically engineered foods labeled.
New allergies from genetically engineered foods could be on the horizon. By cutting and splicing genes (basically reprogramming the genes already present in a species), scientists can create brand-new proteins that people have never eaten before.
By crossing the reproductive barrier and combining genes from several species, scientists introduce foods we do not normally eat, such as insects, bacteria, and viruses. "A lot of the genes that are being put into genetically engineered foods are from sources that we don’t typically eat. Like soil bacteria, or . . . petunias," says Dr. Rissler. "We don’t normally eat petunias, nor, not since we were children, do we normally eat much soil." Thus, their potential allergenicity is unknown. Rissler and others question whether we should be eating such novel organisms that our bodies may not have been designed to process correctly.
Rod Townsend, spokesperson for Pioneer Hi-bred, said that they thoroughly screen all their genetically engineered products for allergenicity. He said the biotechnology industry has collaborated with the Allergy and Immunology Institute to produce a "decision tree" to help determine the potential for proteins to be food allergens. Wherever possible, industry is encouraged to obtain serum to test. Barring that, the companies screen for the physical and biochemical characteristics which are frequently common to allergens. For instance, proteins that take a long time to digest are suspect. "All the proteins that we've seen introduced into crops so far are rapidly digested," said Townsend, reducing the possibility that someone will become sensitized to an allergen. Also, they compare the amino acid sequences to amino acids that produce known allergens to screen out allergens.
Townsend said that new allergens from genetically engineered foods are unlikely, since the screening process should catch them. And, he indicated that the screening process should also catch the proteins from sources we do not ordinarily eat (such as bacteria and viruses). "We have spent a lot of time considering the issue of allergenicity because, obviously, it is a safety issue that has to be addressed," said Townsend.
[Author's note, October 2000 - A genetically engineered variety of corn that has allergenic properties was found in the human food supply. StarLink corn, created by Aventis FoodSciences, was approved by the USDA for livestock feeding, but not for human consumption. Friends of the Earth discovered the problem when they had some taco shells tested by Genetic ID. Aventis is trying to buy back the corn from farmers and assist with the cost of segregation. According to The Des Moines Register, October 20, 2000 (p. 1A), "The USDA has a zero StarLink tolerance for any corn meant for food processing. There is a concern that StarLink may cause unspecific allergic reactions, but so far no one has fallen ill from ingesting foods with StarLink corn." The grain elevator and processing companies are frantically trying to segregate the StarLink corn. Headline on page 2A of The Des Moines Register: "Some of StarLink corn crop may never be found."]
Food sensitivities are much more wide-spread than true food allergies. While a food allergy involves the immune system, a food sensitivity is any unusual reaction to eating a food. People with food sensitivities experience symptoms when they eat particular foods, including fatigue, headache, insomnia, depression, anxiety, hyperactivity, hives, or heart palpitations. Avoidance of the offending food is the most common treatment. Genetic engineering could make food sensitivities more prevalent, said certified nutritionist Robert Crayhon, M.S. "We've evolved with genetically natural foods," he says. "Our bodies are tuned in to these foods the way they are...Cutting and pasting is fine in word processing, but it's not fine with the genetic and molecular structure of food. When you start inserting genes from one food into another, then people who are sensitive to the donor food could have reactions."
Toxins
Toxins are another real possibility with these new foods. In 1989, a genetically engineered batch of L-tryptophan, an amino acid sold as a food supplement, left 37 dead and at least 1,511 severely ill, some even permanently disabled, in the United States. The food supplement was made from bacteria that had been genetically altered to produce large amounts of L-tryptophan. A study revealed this food supplement was contaminated with a toxin not present in L-tryptophan produced by conventional methods.
Investigative writer Sharalyn Harris has interviewed many people injured by the contaminated L-tryptophan. She said that the long-term health effects include: Eosinophilia-myalgia Syndrome (EMS), joint pain, cognitive problems, infections, hair loss, fatigue, sleeping problems, and fevers. One of those affected said that during the long search for the cause of her symptoms, "I felt as though there was something foreign in my body. It was very severe."
Harris is concerned that genetically engineered foods are not labeled. "It took hundreds of people all over the U.S. and untold taxpayer dollars to track the contamination in the L-tryptophan," she said. "How are they going to track problems with genetically engineered foods without labels, without records, and with so many different foods?"
Routine food-safety tests would not have prevented this tragedy, according to Dr. Fagan. Only tests on humans would have detected these problems. However, these tests were not done, and government regulations still do not require them. "If it is impossible to predict the consequences of altering the genes of a simple, single-celled organism [such as the L-tryptophan-producing bacterium], how can genetic engineers say with confidence that manipulations of far more complex plants and animals will be predictable and safe?"
Genetic Pollution
Unlike a car or a baby seat, altered genes cannot be recalled. Insects and winds cannot tell which plants have been genetically altered. They will spontaneously bring pollen from genetically engineered plants to related plants and weeds, and sometimes the altered gene will be accepted by the relatives. This is called genetic pollution, and it is the most irreversible effect of genetic engineering. An article in Nature showed that genetic pollution has already occurred in an experiment involving canola plants and their weedy relatives.
Pesticide and Herbicide Resistance
Plants that are genetically engineered to resist herbicides and insects could make themselves obsolete. Monsanto is selling more of its own Roundup herbicide now that it has genetically engineered Roundup Ready soybeans and cotton. Roundup, also known as glyphosate, kills everything green, but Roundup Ready plants are resistant to this herbicide. Hence, farmers can douse their Roundup Ready crops with Roundup and wipe out every single weed in the field.
"Roundup has very desirable environmental properties," said Gary Barton, a spokesperson for Monsanto. The best-selling herbicide in the world, Roundup has been used "very effectively" for over 26 years. As an example of its environmental benefits, Roundup is increasingly applied as an alternative to conventional tillage before planting. The herbicide kills all the weeds, and then light equipment plants the seeds in the earth. This helps prevent erosion and retain soil moisture.
Is it safe? "It certainly wouldn't be on the market if it wasn't," says Barton.
Problems could arise, however, with increasing reliance on Roundup. Weeds could develop resistance. The ability of a strain of ryegrass, one of the most common weeds in Australia, to resist Roundup has reportedly been confirmed by researchers at the Centre for Conservation Farming at Charles Sturt University in New South Whales. Could more Roundup-resistant weeds be coming? Barton claims that "resistance is not a factor" due to Roundup's unique properties and mechanism of action.
A biotechnologist who asked to not be named says that the possibility of wide-spread weed resistance to Roundup did not worry him. He said that if there came a time that Roundup did not work anymore, biotechnologists would have created a new solution.
The bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (B.t.) is an organic pesticide, judiciously applied by organic farmers as an alternative to chemical pesticides. Monsanto and Novartis have genetically engineered plants to produce their own B.t. toxins, in order to control insects such as the corn-borer and bollworm. Built-in insecticides save conventional farmers from applying insecticides on their crops. In its first year of commercial use, Monsanto claims that its Bollguard® (B.t.)cotton saved farmers from applying one million liters of insecticides.
However, scientists such as Margaret Mellon of the Union of Concerned Scientists warn that the wide-spread presence of B.t. toxins could help the insects quickly develop resistance. This would render B.t. useless for organic and chemical farmers alike. While the chemical farmers could probably rely on another genetically engineered solution, the organic farmers would have lost powerful microscopic allies.
The companies that develop B.t. crops are working with the Environmental Protection Agency to develop "resistance management" plans. These sorts of plans were not in place when synthetic chemicals were introduced. Farmers wanting to use B.t. crops must attend training classes where they learn such tactics as interspersing acres of B.t. plants with acres of non-B.t. plants to dilute the resistant population. "[Resistance management plans] help make this technology [B.t.] be available as long as possible," said Monsanto's Barton.
According to Benedikt Haerlin, Greenpeace's International coordinator on Genetic Engineering, these voluntary resistance management plans are "thoroughly inadequate." Greenpeace is part of a coalition of 31 environmental, farming, and scientific organizations that recently charged the EPA with gross negligence for approving B.t. crops. Their formal legal petition is the first step in a federal lawsuit. They demand the EPA withdraw approval of B.t. plants, due to its threat to the environment and to the future of organic agriculture. They also charge that the EPA violated several laws and regulations in approving B.t. plants.
Detecting An Altered Gene
Separating genetically engineered foods from genetically natural foods is a logistical problem. Much of the food in the United States is sold in huge, interchangeable lots. An October 1996 article in the Des Moines Register quoted several members of the agriculture industry saying that segregation is "impossible." According to the article, segregation might increase the cost of genetically engineered foods, without an obvious consumer benefit.
Laura Ticciati from Mothers for Natural Law, a non-profit organization based in Fairfield, Iowa, concedes there will be challenges in segregating, but the task is not impossible. "Many physicians and scientists are concerned about the safety of genetically engineered foods. Thus, it is the responsibility of industry and government to allow consumers to make a choice for themselves." These doctors and scientists include Neal D. Barnard, M.D., President of Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine; Samuel S. Epstein, M.D. University of Illinois; Professor Stuart A. Newman, Ph.D.
Mothers for Natural Law is working with the food industry on labeling foods as "genetically natural" as an interim measure. Long term, says Ticciati, "if these genetically engineered foods are going to be on the market, at the very least they should be labeled." Paying for segregation and labeling would be part of the cost of doing business. "With a new technology, the burden of proving its safety falls on the scientist, not on the consumer."
Another reason that industry gives for not segregating genetically engineered crops is that, until the fall of 1996, there was no way for people to tell which seed or food was genetically altered. In response to these concerns, a new Iowa company called Genetic ID was formed to provide testing services to detect genetically engineered foods.
Eliminating World Hunger?
Some scientists and biotechnology companies are promoting genetic engineering as the revolutionary solution to word hunger. However, some attendees to the World Food Summit in Rome last year warned that genetic engineering may perpetuate pesticide- and herbicide-intensive farming, or introduce a new dependence on genetically altered seeds. At the summit, Greenpeace advocated solutions based on the sustainable development of local crops.
Smart Shopping
Several whole foods stores in Iowa are concerned about whether the food they sell is genetically engineered. Theresa Carbrey, education director of the New Pioneer Food Co-op in Iowa City, wants her customers to understand the risks associated with genetically engineered foods. "This recent bursting of genetically engineered foods really presents a challenge to shoppers," she says.
"We’ve seen increased labeling -- for example, Nutrition Facts showing calories, fat, carbohydrate, and vitamin content -- and this has represented progress on the part of the government for the consumer's right to know," said Carbrey. "But the failure of the government to label genetically engineered foods is a big disappointment. This is an important piece of information consumers need." Free information on genetic engineering is available in the store, at the corner of Washington and Van Buren Streets in Iowa City. The Co-op will sponsor a discussion on the pros and cons of genetic engineering, featuring Dr. John Fagan, molecular biologist, and Dr. Keith Redenbaugh, at Shambaugh Auditorium on the University of Iowa campus, Iowa City on October 21, 1997 at 7:15 PM.
Everybody's Whole Foods Store on Highway 1 in Fairfield posts information on genetic engineering, including the status of the genetically engineered Bovine Growth Hormone (BGH) in its dairy products. "We believe that it's in everyone's best interest to be informed," say John Dey. "Because we are a whole foods store, we believe that people should have access to information, and then make their decisions."
Dey wants genetically engineered foods labeled. "We believe that, with genetic engineering, people are at risk. Science will yet prove that. Until then, labeling, either by the manufacturer or even by ourselves, will let our customers make a choice," said Dey. Both New Pioneer Food Co-op and Everybody's Whole Foods Store carry a large selection of organic food.
Is Organic Food Genetically Engineered?
Organic food may provide a safe haven for those who do not want to eat genetically engineered foods. Most organic farmers find genetic engineering in violation of the basic tenets of organic and will not use it.
The National Organic Standards Board recommended to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) that genetic engineering in all forms be kept out of the organic market. A decision from the USDA should appear in the Federal Register this fall (1997). At that time, the public will have a narrow window of time to respond. It is possible that genetically engineered inputs will be allowed on a case-by-case basis. Mothers for Natural Law is concerned this would "contaminate . . . the only safe food source left."
Currently, many packaged organic foods contain non-organic ingredients. These are listed on the label without the word "organic" in front of them. In particular, non-organic soy and corn products, which are in most processed foods, are increasingly likely to be genetically engineered. These ingredients include soybean oil, lecithin, high fructose corn syrup, corn syrup, corn starch, corn meal, corn flour, and corn oil.
Making an Informed Choice
For people concerned about the safety of genetically engineered foods, eating is like a game of Russian Roulette. Shoppers, retailers, manufacturers, distributors and sometimes even farmers do not always know what is genetically engineered and what is genetically natural. The companies that create genetically engineered seed say the food is safe and beneficial. On the other hand, scientists, doctors, and public interest groups vocalize numerous safety concerns. This leaves concerned consumers with the task of letting authorities know they want to choose with their pocketbooks whether genetically engineered food is worth the potential risks. However, until these foods are labeled, and more rigorous safety measures are in place, the game continues.
Selected References:
Fagan, J. Genetic Engineering: The Hazards—Vedic Engineering: The Solutions. Fairfield, Iowa: Maharishi International University Press, 1995.
Mikkelsen, T., et al., The Risk of Crop Transgenic Spread. Nature, 380:31, 1996.
Nordlee, J., et al., Identification of a Brazil-nut Allergen in Transgenic Soybeans. New England Journal of Medicine, 334:688-92, March 14, 1996.
For more information on Genetically Engineered Foods:
Alliance for Bio-Integrity
is preparing a lawsuit that would force the government to label these
foods, based on religious and moral freedom. Write to P.O. Box 2927, Iowa
City, Iowa 52244-2927. Phone: (641) 472-5554. On the web: http://www.biointegrity.org/
[Author's note, October 2000: The lawsuit was lost but will be appealed.
See Alliance for Bio-Integrity's web
site for details]
Mothers for Natural Law is heading the American Campaign to Ban Genetically Engineered Foods and the Consumer Right-to-know Initiative for Mandatory Labeling. Mothers for Natural Law, P.O. Box 1177, Fairfield, Iowa 52556. Phone: (641) 472-2809. On the web: http://www.safe-food.org/
Lee Leffler, "The Newsletter Gal" |
