A small company named Showa Denko was certified by the United States federal government to commit the mass-murder of 37 Americans in 1988. Another 1500 unsuspecting citizens became paralyzed for life. Of course, no bullet was ever fired-for many of the victims, that would have been an easier way out. These unsuspecting men and women were poisoned. A highly toxic contaminant called EBT was released into their diet, and it resulted in the contraction of eosinophilia myalgia syndrome, or EMS. The symptoms of EMS include fatigue, extreme light sensitivity, headaches, memory and cognitive deficits, painful swelling and cracking of the skin, heart problems, permanent paralysis and neurological complications. Showa Denko genetically engineered a bacterium to produce an amino acid (used in food supplements) called L-tryptophan at an accelerated rate. No safety testing of this new bacterium ever took place. It was discovered to produce EBT only after thousands of Americans had paid the price. The government said they didn't have to test it; the bacteria were "substantially equivalent" to the safe version. The substantially equivalent version never killed 37 people.
Rudimentary agriculture led to the development of permanent human settlements, the beginning of civilization. Our farming technology was forced to advance along with increases in our population. Eventually, advanced farming techniques allowed for food surpluses which led to specialization: the ability to enter professions other than farming, such as science. Many thousands of years later, our technology has advanced to the point where only a small minority of the population can be responsible for the production of food for our entire society. Agricultural science helped us to understand the importance of fertilizers, crop rotation, herbicides and insecticides. When the fundamentals behind genetic engineering were developed, it was only natural to extend the list of possible applications to agriculture. In theory, genetically engineered crops could produce their own insecticides, become resistant to herbicides, stay fresher longer, grow faster and grow more. In theory, it sounds wonderful. In practice, genetic engineering has unpredictable results, which can easily spread to (and harm) the natural ecosystem and be impossible to remove.
Every living organism has unique DNA. It contains all of the information necessary to describe the organism. Genes are the individual messages that DNA is comprised of. Each gene is the definition of one particular characteristic of the organism. Nature allows for genetic variety inside a single species. Traditional selective breeding techniques attempt to only use the plants or animals with the best traits for further reproduction. This is basically isolating the individual organisms with the best genes. Genetic engineering is supposed to take the guesswork out of this process, by inserting only the specific characteristic (gene) that the breeder wants. The methods for insertion, as described by Luke Anderson:
There are now two principal methods which can be used to force the 'new' gene into the DNA of the plant that is to be engineered.
1. A 'ferry' is made with a piece of genetic material taken from a virus or a bacterium. This is used to infect the plant and in doing so smuggle the 'new' gene into the plant's own DNA. A bacterium called Agrobacterium tumifaciens which usually causes gall formation in plants is commonly used for this purpose.
Or
2. The genes are coated onto large numbers of tiny gold pellets which are fired with a special gun into a layer of cells taken from the recipient organism, with any luck finding a hit somewhere in the DNA in the nucleus of the cells. (Anderson 3)
Neither of these methods are very accurate. In fact, the only way to be sure that the gene actually reached the intended target is to send a marker gene along with whatever characteristic the scientist wishes to incorporate. In most cases, the marker gene gives the recipient organism resistance to an antibiotic. After one of those methods have been used, the cells are then grown around that antibiotic. The ones that survive in that environment successfully received the gene transfer. Other marker genes include a gene expressing luciferase, the enzyme responsible for the light-emitting reaction in the tails of fireflies. Successful transfers literally glow.
Even if the transfer is successful, there's no guarantee that the gene that was introduced will work as hypothesized. Plants and animals are the most complex systems on earth, and no one gene is isolated from the others. Artificially changing just one gene could have adverse and random effects on the entire organism. "Any change to the DNA of an organism at any point may well have knock-on effects that are impossible to predict or control" (Anderson 4). The fact is, the unpredictable effects of genetic engineering can at best be harmless but far from predicted, and at worst dangerous or even fatal to humans. Early experiments with salmon, for example, led to unpredictable results. "Salmon genetically engineered with a growth hormone gene not only grew too big too fast but also turned green" (Steinbrecher). Obviously, the results made the new salmon unacceptable as a source of food. However, this is only a minor failure compared to what could happen.
There is no limit to the severity of alteration you can make when you change the genetic makeup of a plant. The severity of those changes isn't based on the number of changes made to the DNA, however; which the slightest of changes has the potential of greatly affecting the nature of the plant. Everything about the plant could change, including its nutritional value, what chemicals it produces, and human tolerance for those chemicals. The nutritional benefits of eating natural foods can diminish after those foods have been altered by science.
A 1999 study by Dr. Marc Lappe published in the Journal of Medicinal Food found that concentrations of beneficial phytoestrogen compounds thought to protect against heart disease and cancer were lower in genetically modified soybeans than in traditional strains. These and other studies ... indicate that genetically engineering food will likely result in foods lower in quality and nutrition. For example the milk from cows injected with rBGH contains higher levels of pus, bacteria, and fat. (Cummins)
Many opponents of the public use of genetically engineered foods cite that those foods which were once harmless could begin to produce chemicals that are either toxic to humans, or prone to induce an allergic reaction. It is possible that genes from a food known to cause an allergic reaction in some people may cause that same allergic reaction when spliced into an unrelated organism and consumed. For example, researchers looked into the possibility of adding a gene from the Brazil nut into the DNA of soybeans. They eventually discovered that without lengthy safety testing, the new soybean could cause a potentially fatal reaction among people with a food allergy to Brazil nuts. The inclusion of the gene was halted because of this discovery.
As mentioned before, the marker genes inserted into transgenic plants are often antibiotic resistance genes. Many studies have confirmed that the gene itself is harmless to humans and animals. Unfortunately, the antibiotics the plants are resistant to are usually still in use as medicinal antibiotics in some countries. This alone presents an unknown threat, that of the antibiotic resistance transferred to bacteria living in digestive tracts of organisms that eat the plant. In the event such a transfer occurs, the bacteria themselves would become resistant to those antibiotics, possibly making treatment of serious infections difficult or impossible. European Union authorities are considering a widespread ban on genetically engineered foods containing antibiotic resistance marker genes simply because of this.
Genetically engineered bacteria are especially dangerous, given the inaccuracy of the methods of alteration and bacteria's natural tendency to reproduce and mutate quickly. The Showa Denko corporation wasn't planning on making the genetically engineered bacterium produce a toxin. They couldn't have known, without safety testing, exactly what the results would be. They were only looking for increased L-tryptophan production, and when they found it, their testing stopped. If they had tested it, they may have found the toxin and the disease-but how many diseases show up so obviously and immediately? It is virtually impossible to discover all of the side effects of genetically engineered organisms, especially in the long term.
Genetic engineering research in our society is driven by one thing: profit. The goal of all genetic engineering projects is to make more money for the company producing the new organism. This is possible because our government grants patents to companies for newly engineered life forms. Nowhere is the capitalist nature of the practice of genetic engineering more obvious than in the production of herbicide-resistant crops. Companies, like Monsanto, engineer resistance to a herbicide they sell (Roundupª) into plants (Roundup Readyª), then sell the plants and the herbicide in package deals. As these crops become increasingly popular, people's concern for world's food supply increases as well. "[People involved in agriculture] worry that biotechnology could exacerbate the world food situation by continuing to place control of the world's genetic resources in the hands of a few transnational corporations" (Keehn)
Herbicide-tolerant crops promote the use of the herbicide, as it won't harm the crop, but will kill the weeds around it. The problem with this is that farmers will tend to overuse the herbicide. Countless adverse side effects follow. The herbicide could be absorbed by the plant, and residue deposited into the edible portion, possibly making it toxic to humans. Herbicide might remain in the soil, harming non-genetically-engineered plants in the next crop rotation. The herbicide could destroy plants helpful to the crop, such as the mycorhizal fungi, which helps plants absorb minerals from the soil. The chemical could get into the local water supply, which might again be consumed by humans. Some types of herbicides have been shown to cause birth defects and cancer in individuals exposed to them. Increased herbicide use could spawn weeds that are naturally resistant to the herbicide: "For example, blackgrass has developed [natural] resistance to herbicides used in cereals" (Nottingham 44). These reasons are all apart from the side effects we have not yet discovered, but increased herbicide use is only part of the problem. If the crop is in an environment where that type of plant grows naturally, the related weed species could gain herbicide resistance through pollen transfer. The crop could become a weed itself in other crops. Clearly, careless use of these plants could be permanently detrimental to the ecosystem.
The ability to splice genes between species brings up several ethical issues as well. The first issue concerns the use of human genes in transgenic plants and animals produced for human consumption. This, of course, leads to questions about cannibalism. How many human genes must be in an organism before eating it is considered cannibalism? A related moral issue is that of animal genes added to plants, and a vegetarian's beliefs and practices. Is it still a plant if part of it came from animal DNA? "The Chinese are now putting human genes into tomatoes and peppers to make them grow faster. You can now be a vegetarian and a cannibal at the same time" (Epstein)! Would it be against one's religion to eat a vegetable made with genes from an animal whose flesh is forbidden to his religion? To accept the use of this type of use of genetic engineering, we have to be able to answer those questions.
We must also consider the humane treatment of experimental transgenic animals. For every "successfully" modified animal, many more "unsuccessful" ones, e.g. the green salmon, are produced. Even most of the successful ones soon develop minor physical deformations. Human growth hormone was inserted into pig embryos in an attempt to make them grow larger and/or faster, but instead it resulted in the infamous "Beltsville hogs." These animals were born with severe arthritis, spinal deformities, blindness, and were impotent. "Higher productivity could be obtained from transgenic animals, but it is likely that these animals would be more prone to stress and disease" (Nottingham 99).
Supporters of genetic engineering explain all of the possible benefits to being able to selectively alter the genes of crops and livestock. They claim that, eventually, bioengineered crops can reap the benefits of built-in herbicide and insecticide, "antifreeze" or frost-resistance, longer lasting freshness, self-produced fertilizer, and better taste. The reason we can't produce those plants today is because locating the proper gene and changing it without any side effects is very improbable, and the process involves endless trial-and-error. During those trials, accidents such as exposing the organism to the natural ecosystem could occur, and there's no reversal process other than location and eradication of all affected plants. Inaccuracy prevails at every step of the genetic engineering process, and the motivation for continued research is purely profit-meaning that "better taste" is at the bottom of the corporate to-do list.
Genetic engineering can produce livestock with increased natural resistance to disease, which in theory would improve the quality of the animal's life. Quite the opposite would occur, however; the owners of the livestock would be less motivated to keep the transgenic animal's living area clean as it would not have as much economic impact as far as loss of livestock from disease. What about the "unsuccessful" animals that come about as a result of the attempts to reach that goal? "I am less concerned about this hog monster (the Beltsville hog) than the human monster, created by our culture, the monster who sees nothing wrong with creating such a hog" (Jackson).
Many are also quick to point out that eventually genetically engineered plants can be used to produce a number of things aside from food, such as plastic, fireproof cotton, and certain medicinal compounds. Ron Epstein comments:
We now have plants genetically engineered to produce plastic. The idea is that we will no longer need to depend so much on petroleum, or on the Middle East for petroleum. The problem here, of course, is that the engineered plants cross-fertilize with their wild brethren, and since none of genetic changes is recallable, we can only hope that we will not one day take walks in the outdoors and be surrounded by flora which are exuding plastic and poisoning the fauna. (Epstein)
Genetic engineering has been called "playing God." With this technology, man can now produce what only nature could before: a completely new life form. Like so many "wonderful" new technologies, all of the side effects of this are as yet unknown. Nuclear energy and CFCs seemed endlessly beneficial to society-before we discovered nuclear waste, nuclear bombs and a gaping hole in the ozone layer. This technology comes with enormous responsibility, the kind of responsibility we obviously lack. Countless wars rage on our planet, large portions of our population are kept in holding cells because they committed some crime against their own society-we kill and subjugate ourselves. We slaughter and imprison animals. We permanently disrupt our own ecosystem in the long run in favor of some immediate minimal benefit. Are we, as a civilization, mature enough to "play God?" Ask the families of the 37 people that died of EMS.
Anderson, Luke. "Genetically Engineered Food." Greenpeace International: Genetic Engineering. 1-8. Greenpeace International. 4 Nov. 2000. http://www.greenpeace.org/~geneng/reports/food/intrfood.htm
Cummins, Ronnie. "Hazards of Genetically Engineered Foods and Crops: Why We Need A Global Moratorium" 25 Aug. 1999. Campaign for Food Safety/Organic Consumers Association. 13 Nov. 2000. http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~rone/GE%20Essays/hazardsGEfood.html
Epstein, Ron. "Ethical and Spiritual Issues in Genetic Engineering." Ahimsa Voices: a Quarterly Journal for the Promotion of Universal Values Oct. 1998: 6
Fagan, Dr. John B. "Tryptophan Summary" Nov. 1997. PSRAST. 12 Nov. 2000. http://home1.swipnet.se/~w-18472/jftrypt.htm
Jackson, Wes. "Listen to the Land." The Amicus Journal Spring 1993.
Keehn, Joel. "Mean Green." Buzzworm Jan. 1992.
Nottingham, Stephen. Eat Your Genes: How Genetically Modified Food is Entering Our Diet. London: Zed Books, 1998.
Steinbrecher, Dr. Ricarda. "What is Genetic Engineering?" Synthesis/Regeneration: A Magazine of Green Social Thought 18 (1999): 9-12.
Wekesser, Carol, ed. Genetic Engineering: Opposing Viewpoints. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1996