Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

permaculture - [Fwd: Rachel #638: Against the Grain, Part 2]

permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: permaculture

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: gardenbetty@earthlink.net
  • To: Sustainable Ag List <sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu>, permaculture list <permaculture@franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: [Fwd: Rachel #638: Against the Grain, Part 2]
  • Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 15:32:48 -0500


> . .
> . RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #638 .
> . ---February 18, 1999--- .
> . HEADLINES: .
> . AGAINST THE GRAIN, PART 2 .
> . ========== .
> . Environmental Research Foundation .
> . P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403 .
> . Fax (410) 263-8944; E-mail: erf@rachel.org .
> . ========== .
> . All back issues are available by E-mail: send E-mail to .
> . info@rachel.org with the single word HELP in the message. .
> . Back issues are also available from http://www.rachel.org. .
> . To start your own free subscription, send E-mail to .
> . listserv@rachel.org with the words .
> . SUBSCRIBE RACHEL-WEEKLY YOUR NAME in the message. .
> =================================================================
>
> AGAINST THE GRAIN, PART 2
>
> The corporations that are introducing genetically modified crops
> into the global ecosystem want you to think of genetic
> engineering as a well-understood science similar to laparascopic
> surgery. Indeed, the phrase "genetic engineering" gives the
> impression that moving genes from one organism to another is as
> straightforward as designing a rocket or a TV set. This is not
> the case.
>
> Basically, a plant's genome (all of its genes, taken together)
> is a black box. Genetic engineering takes a gene from one black
> box and forces it into a second black box (the recipient plant),
> hoping that the new gene will "take." Most of the time, the
> experiment fails.[1] Once in a few thousand tries, the foreign
> gene embeds itself in the recipient plant's genome and the
> newly-modified plant gains the desired trait. But that is all
> the technicians know. They have no idea where in the receiving
> plant's genome the new gene has found a home. This fundamental
> ignorance, combined with the speed and scale at which modified
> organisms are being released into the global ecosystem, raises a
> host of questions of safety for the future of agriculture, for
> the environment, and for human health.
>
> ** To begin with, genes don't necessarily control a single
> trait. A gene may control several different traits in a plant.
> Without careful study, plants with undesirable characteristics
> may be released into the global ecosystem. And biotechnology is
> not like a chemical spill that can be mopped up -- once you
> release a new gene sequence into nature, your grandchildren are
> going to be living with it because there's no taking it back.
>
> ** How a gene affects a plant depends upon the environment. The
> same gene can have different effects, depending on the
> environment in which the new plant is growing.[2] What appears
> predictable and safe after a few years of observation of a small
> test plot may turn out to have quite different consequences when
> introduced into millions of acres of croplands in the U.S. and
> elsewhere, where conditions vary widely.
>
> ** Does the new gene destabilize the entire plant genome in some
> unforeseen way, leading one day to problems in that crop? Only
> time will tell.
>
> ** Genes can travel to nearby, related plants on their own. This
> is called gene flow. In 1996 gene flow was discovered to be much
> more common that previously thought.[3]
>
> According to SCIENCE magazine, many ecologists say it is only a
> matter of time before an engineered gene makes the leap to a
> weedy species, this creating a new weed or invigorating an old
> one. "It will probably happen in far less than 1% of the
> products," warns ecological geneticist Norm Ellstrand of the
> University of California at Riverside, "but within 10 years we
> will have a moderate-to-large scale ecological or economic
> catastrophe, because there will be so many [genetically
> modified] products being released,"[3] Ellstrand predicts. It is
> worth noting that U.S. farmers already spend $4.3 billion
> purchasing 628 million pounds of herbicides (active ingredients
> only) to control weeds.[4,pg.32]
>
> The Congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA)
> recommended that all genetically modified plants should be
> considered non-indigenous exotic species, with the power to
> disrupt ecosystems.[4,pg.29] Non-indigenous, introduced species
> have provided great benefits to humanity (most of U.S.
> agriculture relies on introduced species), but we also should
> learn from kudzu, purple loosestrife, the gypsy moth, the fire
> ant, and the boll weevil that exotic species can be extremely
> disruptive and very expensive to control (if indeed they can be
> controlled at all).
>
> ** A public health disaster was narrowly averted in 1996 when a
> group of researchers tried to improve soybeans by giving them a
> gene from the Brazil nut.[5] The goal was to improve the
> nutritional value of soybeans by forcing them to produce more
> methionine, an essential amino acid. The gene from the Brazil
> nut was successfully transferred to soybeans. After this had
> been accomplished, but before the soybeans were sold
> commercially, independent researchers tested the soybeans to see
> if it would cause allergic reactions in people. Many people are
> allergic to nuts, particularly Brazil nuts. In some people,
> allergic reaction to Brazil nuts is swift and fatal.
>
> A series of laboratory tests on humans confirmed that the
> genetically modified soybeans did provoke Brazil-nut allergy in
> humans. They could not feed the genetically modified soybeans to
> people for fear of killing them, but through scratch tests on
> skin, they confirmed unequivocally that people allergic to
> Brazil nuts were allergic to the modified soybeans. In
> discussing their findings in the NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF
> MEDICINE, the researchers pointed out that tests on laboratory
> animals will not necessarily discover allergic reactions to
> genetically modified organisms. Only tests on humans will
> suffice.
>
> U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) only requires testing
> for allergic reactions if a gene is being taken from a source
> that is already known to cause allergic reactions in humans.
> Many genes are being taken now from bacteria and other
> life-forms whose allergenicity is entirely unknown, so federal
> regulations require no allergy testing in these cases. This
> reduces regulatory costs for the corporations, but leaves the
> public unprotected.
>
> ** Crops are being genetically modified chiefly as a way to sell
> more pesticides. [See REHW #637.] In some cases, the modified
> crops change the pesticides themselves, giving them new
> toxicity. The herbicide bromoxynil falls into this
> category.[1,pg.41] Bromoxynil is already recognized by U.S. EPA
> [Environmental Protection Agency] as a possible carcinogen and
> as a teratogen (i.e., it causes birth defects). Calgene (now
> owned by Monsanto) developed a strain of cotton plants (called
> BXN Cotton) that can withstand direct spraying with bromoxynil.
> Unfortunately, the bromoxynil-resistant gene in cotton modifies
> the bromoxynil, turning it into a chemical byproduct called
> DBHA, which is at least as toxic as bromoxynil itself.
>
> Although humans do not eat cotton, traditional silage for cattle
> contains up to 50% cotton slash, gin mill leavings, and cotton
> debris. Both bromoxynil and DBHA are fat-soluble, so they can
> accumulate in the fat of animals. Therefore, it is likely that
> DBHA will make its way into the human food chain through meat.
> Furthermore, cotton seed oil is widely used as a direct human
> food and as a cooking additive. In licensing bromoxynil for use
> on Monsanto's genetically modified BXN Cotton, EPA conducted a
> risk assessment that assumed bromoxynil and DBHA had no way to
> enter the human food chain. Lastly, cotton dust -- the cause of
> brown lung disease -- will now carry the added hazard of
> bromoxynil and DBHA, another danger that EPA has disregarded.
> Thus genetic engineering -- which is being promoted as a
> technology that will reduce the perils of pesticides -- will in
> some instances increase them.
>
> In rats and in rabbits, bromoxynil causes serious birth defects,
> including changes in the bones of the spine and skull, and
> hydrocephaly ("water on the brain"). These birth defects appear
> in offspring at doses of bromoxynil that are not toxic to the
> mother. Despite these findings, and despite a law (the Food
> Quality Protection Act of 1996) that explicity gives EPA the
> power to reduce exposure standards to protect infants, EPA in
> 1997 declined to require a special safety factor to protect
> children from bromoxynil.
>
> Lastly, when EPA added up the cancer-causing potential of
> bromoxynil, they found it to be 2.7 per million, and they
> promptly declared this to be "well within" the one-in-a-million
> regulatory limit.[1,pg.46] Is 2.7 less than one?
>
> By all appearances, EPA is more interested in protecting
> Monsanto's investment in this new technology than in protecting
> public health.
>
> ** Because genetically-engineered soybeans will be doused with
> increased quantities of herbicides, such as Roundup
> (glyphosate), soybeans and soy products will carry increased
> chemical residues. Infants who must be reared on soy milk,
> because they cannot tolerate lactose in regular milk, will be at
> special hazard.
>
> ** Crops that are genetically modified to resist herbicides
> detoxify the herbicides by producing proteins, which will be
> incorporated into our food with unknown results.[1,pg.143]
>
> ** When crops are genetically modified to incorporate the
> naturally-occurring Bt toxin into their cells (see REHW #636),
> those Bt toxins will be incorporated into foods made from those
> crops. What will be the effect of these toxins and gene products
> on the bacteria and other organisms (the so-called microflora)
> that live in the human digestive tract? Time will tell.
>
> ** The "life sciences" companies have big plans for turning
> agricultural crops into "factories" for producing
> pharmaceuticals and specialty chemicals in open fields. They
> plan to manufacture vaccines, drugs, detergents, enzymes and
> other chemicals by putting the right genes into the right
> plants.
>
> The net effect of all this will be to expose soil insects and
> microorganisms, foraging and burrowing animals, seed-eating
> birds, and a myriad of other non-target organisms to these
> chemicals and to the gene products that make them. The Union of
> Concerned Scientists says, "Herbivores will consume the
> chemicals as they feed on plants. Soil microbes, insects, and
> worms will be exposed as they degrade plant debris. Aquatic
> organisms will confront the drugs and chemicals washed into
> streams, lakes, and rivers from fields."[4,pg.6]
>
> ** Most fundamentally, genetically-engineered crops substitute
> human wisdom for the wisdom of nature. As genetically-engineered
> crops are planted on tens of millions of acres, the diversity of
> our agricultural systems is being further diminished. Do we know
> enough to select the "right" combination of genes to assure the
> stable, long-term yield of our agricultural systems? Our recent
> experiences with PCBs, CFCs, DDT, Agent Orange, and global
> warming should give us pause. Genetic engineering is by far the
> most powerful technology humans have ever discovered, and it is
> being deployed by the same corporations that, historically, have
> produced one large-scale calamity after another. Is there any
> good reason to think things will be different this time?
>
> ==========
> [1] Marc Lappe and Britt Bailey, AGAINST THE GRAIN;
> BIOTECHNOLOGY AND THE CORPORATE TAKEOVER OF YOUR FOOD [ISBN
> 1567511503] (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1998).
> Available from Common Courage Press, P.O. Box 207, Monroe, ME
> 04951. Tel. (207) 525-0900 or (800) 497-3207.
>
> [2] Craig Holdrege, GENETICS AND THE MANIPULATION OF LIFE: THE
> FORGOTTEN FACTOR OF CONTEXT (Hudson, N.Y.: Lindisfarne Press,
> 1996). ISBN 0-940262-77-0. Available from Lindisfarne Press, RR4
> Box 94 A-1, Hudson, NY 12534.
>
> [3] James Kling, "Could Transgenic Supercrops One Day Breed
> Superweeds?" SCIENCE Vol. 274 (October 11, 1996), pgs. 180-181.
>
> [4] Jane Rissler and Margaret Mellon, THE ECOLOGICAL RISKS OF
> ENGINEERED CROPS (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1996).
>
> [5] Julie A. Nordlee and others, "Identification of a Brazil-nut
> Allergen in Transgenic Soybeans," NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF
> MEDICINE Vol. 334, No. 11 (March 14, 1996), pgs. 688-692.
>
> Descriptor terms: agriculture; biotechnology; genetic
> engineering; regulation; epa; food safety; food security;
> pesticides; bt; glyphosate; roundup; monsanto; bromoxynil; dbha;
> herbicides; allergens; bxn cotton; soybeans;
>
> ################################################################
> NOTICE
> Environmental Research Foundation provides this electronic
> version of RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY free of charge
> even though it costs our organization considerable time and money
> to produce it. We would like to continue to provide this service
> free. You could help by making a tax-deductible contribution
> (anything you can afford, whether $5.00 or $500.00). Please send
> your tax-deductible contribution to: Environmental Research
> Foundation, P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403-7036. Please do
> not send credit card information via E-mail. For further
> information about making tax-deductible contributions to E.R.F.
> by credit card please phone us toll free at 1-888-2RACHEL, or at
> (410) 263-1584, or fax us at (410) 263-8944.
> --Peter Montague, Editor
> #




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page