What do Human Genes and Rice have in Common?
Nothing! Except that a California
company is introducing human genes to open-field rice crops.Related:
Pharm
and Industrial Crops: The next wave in Agricultural Biotechnology
Biopharmed and biotech Crops: What purpose do human genes serve in rice crops?
How could the safety of biotech crops possibly be calculated in humans, after
consumption, in generations to come?
Lorelei Jackson
12.08.04
Less than a decade after the first biotech crop was commercialized in 1996, biotech crops are now being grown in 18 countries, and research and development is being conducted in another 45, according to a study by a leading U.S. food and trade policy analyst. You have probably eaten at least one biotech food product yourself.
To date, the United States is the leader in producing biotech crops, with $27.5
billion in value in 2003 - 04 from growing biotech-enhanced soybeans, corn,
cotton and canola. 
The
other top five countries in terms of current biotech production include:
-- Argentina with $8.9 billion in value from soybeans and corn
-- China with $3.9 billion in value from cotton
-- Canada with $2 billion in value from canola, corn and soybeans
-- Brazil with $1.6 billion in value from soybeans
The United States is the leading adopter of biotech crops, approving 15 crops to date, including corn, cotton, canola, soybeans, chicory, cotton, flax, melon, papaya, potatoes, rice, squash, sugar beets, tobacco and tomatoes. Corn, cotton, soybeans, canola, squash, papaya and tobacco are the only crops with significant planted acreage. From 1991 to 2003, the United States conducted field trials, with traits being researched in 24 crops in 2003. Trials included research on fungal-resistant potatoes, peanuts, plums, bananas, rice, lettuce, salt-tolerant cucumbers, herbicide-tolerant peas, onions, tobacco and many others.
We might reap the benefits of cheap, farm-grown pharmaceuticals; lawns that need to be cut only twice a year; flowers with different scents and new colors; nonaddictive and zero-nicotine tobacco; quick-growing trees that produce cheap, high-quality paper; and vegetables that are bigger, taste better and are more healthful.
If some researchers hit pay dirt, we may also, in time, benefit from crops that gather and remove air and soil pollutants -- or see farms that "grow" plastics and petroleum.
While that vision scares some people -- critics blast the altered crops as dangerous "Frankenfood" -- the opposition appears to be gradually letting up as the benefits of genetic modification become clearer. That's especially so in Europe, long the center of opposition. Earlier this year, the European Union finally eased regulations that had effectively banned all genetically modified organisms from the Continent.
If the momentum continues, as now seems likely, the economic and financial implications could be considerable. St. Louis-based Monsanto, the global leader in genetically modified commercial crops, would be a clear beneficiary. Swiss rival Syngenta could also get a lift. So could a host of smaller, private companies, some of which may eventually sell stock to the public. At the same time, big, established food companies that have been reluctant to back genetic modification, either directly or as customers.
What a wonderful vision to look forward to.
Bioengineering though, goes into levels of questionable practices. For starters, the bulk of research and lobbying on biotechnology is being done by a handful of multinationals: Monsanto, DuPont, Dow Chemicals (remember Bhopal?), Advanta, Bayer AG, BASF, and Singenta (formerly Novartis and AstraZeneca). Secondly, their research is still incomplete - we still don’t know for sure how safe these products are and how they effect the environment. Conversely, all these giants were, at one time or another, involved in the creation of some of the most harmful products in our life on Earth: heroin, the atom bomb, napalm, agent orange, and other chemical weapons.
The Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) states that a, "landmark British study found that biotech crops are just as environmentally benign as conventional plant varieties. When the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology polled Americans, we were still split down the middle on the question of whether GE foods were "basically safe" to eat. Commenting on Pew's findings, Des Moines Register columnist Phil Brasher wrote: "It could be ignorance, not familiarity, that breeds contempt." "However, we found that in 2000, a genetically modified corn seed called Starlink
mixed with other varieties of corn and forced several food companies to recall
products. A worldwide drop in corn prices followed. The cost to producers,
sellers and consumers could not have been good. Farmers and consumers sued
Starlink creator Aventis SA and other companies involved with its development
and distribution. The consumers said Starlink corn caused allergic reactions.
Not quite so benign as the biotech pushers would have us believe is it.
A California company is introducing human genes to open-field rice crops. Claire Cummings of WorldWatch says, "These genes are supposed to produce the equivalent of the human form of the proteins that will be used as an additive to human infant formula and as an anti-microbial for poultry feed. They are grown in the rice crops because it is thought to be cheaper than producing them in a factory setting. These proteins are available both in the natural form and through other manufacturing processes, but the modification of a food crop like rice to produce drugs is thought to be an innovation that will be cheaper and easier, and give farmers a high value crop."
She goes on to say, "All of this is speculative, of course. And there is no good information on the environmental and human health concerns... especially long term." "It has not been proven that plants produce the same proteins or that if they are chemically the same that a human would metabolize them in the same way. What I am saying is that we just do not know the character of these new GMO proteins. When claims are made about these products, the tests must be carefully scrutinized to be sure that they are using the same recombinant forms, for instance."
Richard Berman from the CCF says, "In the last days, according to the Book of Revelation, the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse will bring unprecedented misery to the peoples of the Earth. At least one of these riders seems to be saddling up right now. His name is Famine, and helping him into his stirrups are all those who would block the continued development of genetically improved food."
In Bermans further rantings on why biotech food is good for you and the world, he has the audacity after his apocalypse statement to say about Bio-activists, "But why sabotage similar creativity by the genetic scientists who would feed ragged multitudes? And why lend an air of glamour to scaremongers who have no higher motivation than selling their product by defaming the competition?" Ragged multitudes? Oh my...that Apocalypse must be right on our tails now.
Would you, will you, oh hell, you probably have already, eat a tomato that in its DNA had DNA from an Alaskan Flounder fish so that it can last longer in the fridge? Why not just eat an unaltered tomato before it goes bad? And what about those new crop varieties that, rather than being resistant to pests, are resistant to a pesticide that kills everything else around (and which happens to be produced only by the same multinational that produces these varieties)? Are we 100 percent sure that these same pests won’t modify themselves to become resistant to this pesticide (the famous ‘super-bug’)?
One important issue of biosafety research is whether gene flow from trans- genic crops to nontransgenic relatives causes unwanted effects. Recombinant DNA from the sugar beet pollen has been detected in the soil at 50 meters from the test plot by PCR analysis and by natural transformation of a soil bacterium, Pseudomonas. (rod-shaped, mostly aerobic flagellated bacteria, commonly found in soil, water, and decaying matter and including some species that are plant and animal pathogens) It was concluded that recombinant DNA is deposited in soil during the growth of tg sugar beets and that a major mechanism of recombinant DNA spread in the environment is the dispersal of pollen which allows recombinant DNA to persist in the field plot for at least a year.
Europe isn’t sure. Even while relaxing some laws, it’s recommending trials, more research and caution. Japanese consumer groups sent a petition with more than a million signatures to the Canadian minister of agriculture to ban genetically modified (GM) wheat in Canada, Japan’s largest exporter of wheat. Even poorer nations aren’t sure. Last year Zambia declined GM food aid, even in the midst of a food crisis. Recently Thailand’s government refused to lift a ban on GM crops. Should countries in crisis over food go to those length? There are pro's and con's on biopharmed/biotech foods.
There are two big active supporters of GM crops: the big multinationals and the US government ( Bush stated that the main cause of famines in Africa was Europe’s negative view of GM food). (check out the USDA's report on the Adoption of Bioengineered Crops)
Supporters of biopharmed/biotech crops act as if it is irrational to worry that there may be a qualitative difference between developing seedless watermelons through selective breeding on one hand, and introducing genes from unrelated organisms, such as splicing bacterium DNA or fish DNA into a tomato plant to make it more pest-resistant, on the other. And rather than methodically demonstrating why gene-spliced foods really are safe, they seem to think their forceful assertions alone are sufficient to convince readers that it is so.
One company's logo, Biolex, touts " What if.....hard-to-make proteins could now be commercialized?" Some of Biolex partners are Bayer Corporation , Centocor, Inc. , Debiopharm S.A. and an undisclosed major pharmaceutical company.
Monsanto's Chief Technology Officer Robert T. Fraleyl said last week that they are already working on second-generation products, like Roundup Ready Flex cotton; consumer-benefit-oriented products, like VISTIVE low-linolenic soybeans and omega-3 fortified oilseeds; and drought-tolerant corn, soybeans and cotton. "This year we saw a significant amount of projects move from the lab to the field," said Fraley. In 2003, Monsanto researchers achieved a breakthrough in biotechnology research on soybeans by dramatically increasing omega-3 content in soybean oil. Soybeans offer a potential alternative to fish as an omega-3 source that offers neutral taste, cost-effective production, and abundant supply.
Hey, I'm all for it as long as we can assure that it does not harm other natural food products, our environment or humans. I'm all for it, provided you tell me what genes or DNA has been spliced into my tomato...please.
It is important to distinguish between contained use biopharmed/biotech food products and their release into the environment. Contained use occurs inside a physical facility designed to prevent escape into the open environment. It can be controlled, in principle, and made as safe as possible (though the current regulation of contained use is far from adequate). Release of biopharmed/biotech food products into the environment, by contrast, cannot be controlled nor recalled, which is why great care must be taken in advance of release.
Too, given the potentials for company-crushing lawsuits and/or a catastrophic loss of consumer confidence or of consumer harm should biopharmed/biotech substances enter the food chain (especially by cross contamination) and cause harm, it is not irrational or anti-biotech for the food industry or bio-activists to insist that non-food plants be used when making pharmaceutical products, or that biotech foods remain contained till more research is done on the potential harm to our natural food sources.
Claire Cummings is the author of 'Silent Winter?' in the May/June 2004 issue of World Watch magazine. Claire also authored 'Rogue Corn On the Loose' in the November/December 2002 issue of World Watch.
A California company is introducing human genes to open-field rice crops. Echoing the warnings of Rachel Carson a generation ago, environmentalists now worry that the unanticipated consequences of such biopharmed crops could lead to a twenty-first century “Silent Winter.”
Here you will find some excerpts from Claire Hope Cummings and questions that were submitted to her during a WorldWatch live session.
Berkeley, CA: If we understand GMOs as the second stage of the "Green Revolution, GR." And taking in account that (1)GR agriculture is wide spread all over the world, and (2)that GMOs are scattered in may parts of the world. Is this situation GR I & II contributing to the Hybridization of not only food, but culture as a whole? If the Culture of the Hybrid is pervading every possible corner of life (body-mind-spirit-environment). What is good and what is fundamentally wrong with such trend for all living beings and the environment?
Claire Hope Cummings: Wow. What an interesting and thoughtful question!
First, yes, I agree that GMOs are an extension of the Green Revolution – and of the chemicalization/industrialization/globalization of food and farming. I am not sure what you mean by the “culture of the hybrid” but I will try to respond from what I believe is perhaps the fundamental flaw in GMO technology. Farmers have been crossing plant varieties for thousands of years, using traditional breeding methods and improving plants in ways that respect the laws of nature and evolution. The difference with GMOs is that they are manufactured specifically to violate these laws of nature and overcome these natural boundaries, crossing species that could never breed in natural conditions and adding genes to that process that are new to the natural world. These GMOs are living organisms and once released into the environment, they can not be withdrawn.
But it is not just the methods I question, it is also the way the technology is being used. This is a commercial technology and its based on some pretty shaky science. As a result we are facing unknown impacts on the environment and human health that are not being studied. I am also concerned with the way the companies that own and sell GMOs are privatizing the genetic basis of the world’s seed stocks through patenting. Farmers are being deprived of their rights to save and breed seed and to develop on farm ecologically based innovations. I think that when you have a few private interests controlling and seeking to profit from what is the basic sustenance of every day life, it does affect the mind-body-spirit as you suggest.
What’s good about this technology? Well, if it had been allowed to develop along with the science we might have found out. But it was diverted, and distorted by these commercial interests so we just do not know. It is possible to find out how it could be used in beneficial ways but for that to happen we would need public interest science to do the basic research and a system of public regulations that ensured safety, as well as public discourse, like this one going on here, that would help us understand what the technology is and how it could be used.
Hana, HI: why do you think so many people have been willing to believe that a for profit corporation like Monsanto is suddenly dedicated to feeding the world?
Claire Hope Cummings: Great question! Of course what people believe is influenced by what they learn, and that is now mainly controlled by the media. So, the biotech industry spends millions every year on slick advertising and that influences people's ideas. The industry is exploiting a natural human concern with hunger in the world. But of course, the fact is that we have enough food for every person on the planet and production is not the problem. If anything, we now have a problem with over production of food and obesity, so we do not need to continue the over production of commodity crops that GMOs contribute to in agriculture. As to Monsanto itself, what is interesting to me is that the companies that created chemical pollution, Dow, Dupont, Monsanto, are the same companies that are causing genetic pollution. And, as your questions wisely implies - why should we believe them this time when they say their products are safe and will not harm the environment? The evidence, and the history of the way they handle their commercial interests indicates otherwise.
Makawao, Hawaii: How can we in Hawaii help prevent this rice being grown in Hawaii?
Claire Hope Cummings: This is a critical concern. Hawaii may be where this rice will be grown and it may have already been tested there - but if California bans this rice, the company may move its operations to Hawaii. California is currently considering allowing the commercialization of this rice, as long as it is grown in Southern California, away from the main rice growing area. But even a change in location would do nothing to address concerns about wildlife, environment and even contamination of the food supply. Hawaii is where many GMOs and novel drug producing crops are tested, again, without sufficient controls to prevent contamination. In Hawaii, there is already widespread contamination from the GMO papaya - so you are right to be concerned. There are several things you can do. Most immediately, would be a public information campaign. There are local groups on the islands you can contact and support. There are web sites for GE free Kauai, KAHEA, www.gmofreemaui.org, and www.higean.org for more information. These organizations are doing great work there. Also you can support those local public officials who are willing to take action. The state should study this problem and pass legislation like Vermont has recently that protects farmers and the state should let people know where the GMOs are being planted so that people can protect their gardens and organic farms. In California, the citizens of Mendocino county just passed a ban on GMO crops, so Hawaii counties could also consider such an action. The strongest action that can be taken. Overall, is to obtain state and national legislation that would test, label, assign liability to companies that release GMOs and to restrict the field testing and growing of GMOs and biopharmaceutical crops.
Bartlett,NH: What purpose do human genes serve in rice crops? How could the safety of biotech crops possibly be calculated in humans after consumption in generations to come?
Claire Hope Cummings: Good questions. These genes are supposed to produce the equivalent of the human form of the proteins that will be used as an additive to human infant formula and as an anti-microbial for poultry feed. They are grown in the rice crops because it is thought to be cheaper than producing them in a factory setting. These proteins are available both in the natural form and through other manufacturing processes, but the modification of a food crop like rice to produce drugs is thought to be an innovation that will be cheaper and easier, and give farmers a high value crop. All of this is speculative, of course. And there is no good information on the environmental and human health concerns. We do not know the answer to your question, especially long term. It has not been proven that plants produce the same proteins or that if they are chemically the same that a human would metabolize them in the same way. What I am saying is that we just do not know the character of these new GMO proteins. When claims are made about these products, the tests must be carefully scrutinized to be sure that they are using the same recombinant forms, for instance.
Guangzhou China: Why is it so difficult to obtain labeling laws requiring genetically altered food to be identified. Are the industry lobbyists that strong or is Congress so "free market" that they don't want any regulations of any kind.
Claire Hope Cummings: The short answer to your question is yes. The politics of GMOs are such that Congress has not been able to act in the public interest - even though polls show up to 95% of the public want labels on GMOs. The real lie here is that there is no "free market" in agriculture, farmers who grow GMOs are the large industrial commodity producers who rely on public subsidies. This entrenched problem in the US and Europe could change if support for farmers were to switch from subsidies for production, which perpetuate our problems of over production, to conservation subsidies which would result in overall savings of public funding, by resulting in less pollution, cleaner water, and perhaps even better health. But that is another important but very complex issue. The lack of consumer choice, however, was part of the overall approach by the industry to ensure that that GMO products would enter the stream of commerce without hindrance. Other countries, including China, are giving consumers and farmers more choice. What is needed is an overall international standards of biosafety, based on the precautionary principle and the recently adopted Biosafety Protocol is a good start.
N.Y., NY: After reading your article, and being very concerned about the implications of some of the methods these scientist are using, what do you see as the 'worst case scenario' in terms of fallout from creating these GMOs that contain human genes?
Claire Hope Cummings: I do have worries. Unfortunately, we don’t have any solid science, because, of course, one of the main points of the article is that there is no good public interest science being done that would tell us what will happen, environmentally or with human health. Although some scary possibilities like the emergence of autoimmune diseases and other questions are being asked by scientists at The Institute of Science in Society in the UK (http://www.i-sis.org.uk)
But I will give you a personal answer. When I was at the wildlife refuge, the stunning sounds and sights of the winter migration made me seriously worry about what would happen if these birds ate rice that produced antimicrobial proteins. If this product is intended for use as a poultry antibiotic, would it not have that effect on the wildlife that eats it in the field? That might confer some benefit to the birds that ate it but that is always disruptive to natural systems and it would eventually create some antibiotic resistant pathogens, as we see happening in industrial agriculture and human communities with the overuse of antibiotics. Those pathogens would then harm or kill off the other birds and could seriously impact both wildlife and agriculture. I worry about the widespread diseases in agriculture that affect birds and poultry, like West Nile virus, and with the spread of avian flu, why would this not be a human concern as well? Ultimately, I believe the failure we are witnessing is in seeing how things are connected and not taking nature’s wisdom into consideration when we employ human technologies. We are intimately connected to the natural world, and our crops and wildlife are all interdependent. I guess I see this particular technology as a break in that connection, a violation of the basic covenant we have had with the natural world for millions of years, and that in our technological hubris we may forget, perhaps to our peril, that no matter what we do, as the old saying goes, “nature bats last.”
resources: