Amy's Columns

My Environmental Epiphany
Poisons in Everyday Household Products? You've Got To Be Kidding
The Non-Toxic Kitchen
Top Ten Nontoxic, Earth Friendly Living Suggestions
Genetically Engineered Food: Responsible Science or X Files Episode?
Food Irradiation: Treating The Symptoms, Ignoring The Causes
Healthy Children

Genetically Engineered Food: Responsible Science or X Files Episode?

It is estimated that over 30,000 food items that contain genetically engineered ingredients are already on the shelves of our local grocery stores. Insect resistant "Bt crops", RoundUp Ready soybeans, rBGH hormone, and "terminator" seeds...the list continues to grow. Some of the genetically engineered crops grown today are: corn, tomatoes, squash, soybean, cotton, potatoes, canola, and dairy products from cows injected with rBGH, a genetically altered hormone used to increase milk production, all with thoroughly unknown consequences. Most of these bioengineered crops have been designed to either produce their own pesticides or withstand herbicides. No one is regulating genetically engineered organisms adequately or properly testing them for safety. "No one can honestly assert that a genetically modified food is safe. This implies that an infinite number of tests have been carried out. The fact is, the tests haven't been done. We don't even know what type of ill effects to look for or which questions to ask", according to Liebe Cavalieri, Ph.D., DNA researcher for over 30 years at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Clearly, we cannot expect anyone to perform an "infinite number of tests" on each synthetic chemical or product. We should expect that an unbiased third party with nothing to gain from the results perform a minimum number of tests. My father, a well-educated man, believes that no one can actually test a product and prove that it is safe, that tests can only prove that a product is not safe. Unlike me, however, he is willing to accept almost any new synthetic chemical product with assurances from the manufacturer that it is not harmful. Why should we trust the word of those who have the most to gain from our acceptance of their product? And even if the manufacturer did conduct tests, would they really be looking for the dangers, or trying to prove the benefits of the new product (or synthetic chemical)?

Don't bother looking for any symbol or indication of genetic engineering on the food product's label-it isn't there, the Food & Drug Administration and Biotech industry doesn't think we need to know. Any health risks will only be discovered by trial and error-we, the consumers, are the guinea pigs. For instance, recently there was a recall on Taco Bell corn taco shells because they were found to contain a genetically engineered variety of corn called, StarLink, which was not intended for human consumption. Ironically, that same variety of corn is used for animal feed, which inevitably ends up in human bodies after we eat the animals that ate the genetically engineered feed. Go figure. What does one do if they've already ingested the taco shells? I was startled to find out that over 3,000 schools sell Taco Bell products in their a la carte line. No quero Taco Bell. It's also troubling that it took independent testing by a non-profit group to find the StarLink residue in the taco shells. Why didn't the EPA test the taco shells, and how many other foods have fallen through the cracks, contaminated, and untested? Industry should not be allowed to police itself. Where is the accountability and the need to put human and animal health above profits?

As of 1998, 73 million acres of genetically modified crops sprouted up worldwide, over 50 million acres in the United States. Before 1995 there were no genetically modified crops grown for commercial sale. The only food that is completely free of genetic engineering (among other things), until further notice from the USDA, is certified organic food. (Beware of processed foods that contain some organic ingredients- if they're not all certified organic they may be bioengineered).

What does Genetically Engineered mean?

In Monsanto's version of reality, they depict biotechnology as just another example in a long line of human modifications of food, like fermentation. Cindy Clasen, a Monsanto research technician, claims, "What we do is the same as Mother Nature". Hardly. In Rachel's Environment & Health Weekly newsletter, Peter Montague writes, "Traditionally the movement of genes has only been possible between closely-related species. Under the natural order established by the Creator, there was no way dog genes could get into cats. Now, however, genetic engineering allows scientists to play God, removing genes from a trout or mosquito and implanting them in a tomato, for better or worse."

Genes are the blueprints for every part of an organism. Genetic engineering is the process of combining genes from one species with genes from another species. In other words breeders bring genetic qualities from anywhere in nature to another unrelated species. For example, in the October 25, 1998 New York Times Magazine article, "Playing God in the Garden" by Michael Pollen, he mentions a German genetics experiment that went awry. Scientists spliced the genes for redness into the petunia. Everything seemed to be going well in the field of red petunias until a hot spell struck and all the pigment in the petunia petals mysteriously disappeared.

Why Genetic Engineering?

Scientists believe that bioengineered food can feed the world by increasing yields, reduce farmer's costs (by allegedly reducing the amount of expensive and toxic chemical inputs), and improve health and nutrition by selecting out certain desirable traits from one organism and injecting those genes into another organism. So, if you want to raise salmon year-round in a northern climate, splice in the frost-resistant gene from a flounder. Scientists are pushing genetic material across natural boundaries. "Biotechnology offers a way to continue ignoring underlying problems, and perpetuates the myth that the inherent ecological limitations of a nature-denying way of life can simply be engineered out of existence", according to Brian Tokar from Goddard College, Institute for Social Ecology. Peter Montague believes that "feeding the hungry" is a sales gimmick. He tells us that if genetically engineered seeds were designed specifically to feed the hungry then they should be able to: (1) grow on poor or marginal soil, (2) develop into plants that were able to produce more high quality protein and a higher per acre yield without increasing machinery, chemicals, and water, (3) be cheap and freely available without restrictive licensing, and (4) be for crops that feed people, not animals. In June of 1998, 24 African delegates stated to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations the following: "We do not believe that such companies or gene technologies will help our farmers to produce the food that is needed in the 21st century. On the contrary, we think it will destroy the diversity, the local knowledge and the sustainable agricultural systems that our farmers have developed for millennia and that it will thus undermine our capacity to feed ourselves." Additionally, Montague says, "fully two-thirds of the genetically engineered crops now available or in development are designed specifically to increase the sale of pesticides produced by the companies that are selling genetically engineered goods."

rBGH:

rBGH is a genetically engineered growth hormone designed to increase milk production. "The FDA has been presented ample data that the levels of IGF-1 (Insulin-like Growth Factor) are elevated in milk from rBGH treated cows. IGF-1 is thought to be an important growth factor in breast cancer, prostate cancer, and colon cancer." From the Ecologist Magazine I learned that, "rBGH milk has high levels of abnormally potent IGF-1, up to ten times the levels in natural milk and over ten times more potent. IGF-1 resists pasteurization and digestion by stomach enzymes and is well absorbed across the intestinal wall… Drinking rBGH milk would thus be expected to increase blood IGF-1 levels and to increase risks of developing prostate cancer and promoting its invasiveness." The utilization of rBGH is credited with the rising use of antibiotics to treat mastitis and udder infections. Monsanto's own label for rBGH, which they call "Posilac", admits to approximately 21 side effects including reproductive and digestive disorders, and painful udder infections called mastitis. Ellen Taggart, Executive Director of the organization, Rural Vermont, says, "But farmers don't need rBGH even if it were safe. U.S. farmers have no problem meeting consumer demand for milk and dairy products and chronically produce a milk surplus that drives down prices and puts small dairy farmers out of business." Vermont is the only state that allows product labels to read "rBGH free".

Roundup Ready:

Are you Roundup Ready? Roundup is the name of one of the Monsanto Corporation's best selling glyphosate-based weed killers. Monsanto has developed genetically altered varieties of soybeans, corn, canola, and sugar beet that are resistant to it. Now farmers can spray even more Roundup on their crops to kill the weeds, but not the crops. The result is further contamination of food, soil, and water, toxicity to animals & plants, reduced soil fertility, and the unknown effects of gene pollution.

Pest-resistant Bt crops:

Insect resistant potatoes are in a store near you, which have been genetically engineered to contain their own pesticide. And which pesticide did Monsanto choose? Bacillus thuringiensis, or B.t., the same natural insecticide that organic growers have used in certain circumstances for years. When Bt is used externally, as is the case with organic farmers, it is killed by sunlight and any existing residue can be washed off the produce. With Bt crops where the toxin-producing gene has been engineered into the plant's DNA, the Bt never dies. Every cell of the resulting plant will contain Bt so that an unsuspecting caterpillar that eats any part of the plant will die, until caterpillars develop "resistance" to the Bt toxin. In fact, in May of 1999, researchers at Cornell University discovered that the Monarch butterfly died unexpectedly from eating milkweed plants that had been dusted with the pollen of GE Bt corn. The widespread of use of Bt in biotech crops is predicted by some scientists to render Bt useless to organic growers within 4 years due to insect resistance.

"Terminator" Technology:

The "Terminator" technology, developed with taxpayer money by the U.S. Department of Agriculture but patented by a Mississippi-based seed company that Monsanto recently purchased, will allow Monsanto to enforce its patents biologically. Certain genes can be spliced into a plant, which will cause the seed produced by that plant to be sterile. Farmers will be forced to purchase new seeds from Monsanto every year instead of the time-honored seed saving. Guess who's making the money? We're losing control of the food system. Imagine if Monsanto achieves their goal of having other Nations grow their staple foods with these Terminator seeds that must be purchased year after year. Corporations will truly control the world.

What are some of the dangers of bioengineered food?

As with any new scientific procedure, there is great uncertainty and concern for dangerous consequences in our environment and our food chain with genetically engineered food. Genetic engineering creates new allergens in food. There will be an elevated use of chemicals on crops, like Roundup, and an increase in the development of herbicide-resistant weeds. There could also be unpredictable mutations of the genetic code in a new bioengineered organism causing new diseases or weaknesses. Like pesticides, genetically engineered organisms don't stay put. Bees can carry pollen from these new "frankenplants" to a wild organism or another nearby farmer's field. This could seriously impact organic grower's ability to maintain their organic certification standards. And what's really scary-now that they've been released into the environment, genetic mistakes can never be contained or recalled. "The FDA has knowingly endangered public health in order to promote the financial interests of giant corporations. In doing so, it has systematically lied and has flagrantly violated federal law", according to Steven M. Druker, J.D., Executive Director, Alliance for Bio-Integrity. This must be an X Files episode!

What You Can Do:

Choose 100% certified organic foods;
Encourage your grocery stores to stock products that are free of genetically engineered ingredients;
Contact the Campaign for Food Safety at: www.purefood.org, telephone: (218) 226-4164;
Write to the USDA and demand labeling of genetically engineered foods and a 50-year moratorium on these foods until their long term effects are known;
Get the word out to friends, family, schools, supermarkets, media, and consumer groups expressing your concern.

Amy Todisco is the President and Owner of greenlivingnow.com organic and natural product webstore. She was the founder and executive director of the nonprofit, the Consumer's Healthy Home Center (CHHC). CHHC was created to hire independent toxicologists to test a variety of household products for their potential inhalation health effects, and then recommend the safest products to consumers. Amy closed down CHHC to create the greenlivingnow.com webstore. She felt that she could inspire and positively impact more people through the webstore. Contact her at: amy@greenlivingnow.com

top of page