Certainly, humankind has engineered food for centuries--through traditional plant breeding, a practice familiar to recreational gardeners whereby two plants are crossbred in order to create hybrid strains containing favorable traits from both original plants. In this way, prettier, more flavorful, or simply hardier plants can be formed. In recent years, however, biotechnology has upped the ante considerably, enabling scientists to inject genetic material forcibly from one living thing straight into another. The term “living thing” is used quite deliberately; while the crossbred species traditionally had to be close--apples and pears, for example--it is possible today to blend genes from vastly different species. Bacterial, viral, even insect or animal (including human) genes can be injected into other species. This practice becomes a cause for concern more particularly when we are dealing with seeds and plants used for food sources, and therein lies the crux of the controversy over GE foods.

As the leading exporter of soybeans, and one of the primary producers of the world’s corn, wheat, and other grain supplies, the US has a multibillion dollar interest in fortifying its agricultural output. There are many crop-ruining pests such as insects, weeds, and viruses, as well as manmade hazards such as insecticides and chemical weed killers. On the surface, therefore, the idea of either injecting a bacterium into a plant’s DNA or using a “gene gun” to propel genetic material into a group of plant cells might seem like a scientifically sound and economically reasonable thing to do. After all, giving a tomato a flounder’s genetic code might prolong its shelf life, and creating more insect-and herbicide-resistant plants might allow us to feed more people for less money. Or so say the kingpins of agribusiness, biotechnology, and the USDA--as they nervously eye the nation’s export balance sheet.

Genetic engineering, however, has become a fiery trade issue, as other nations who have traditionally imported our grain and food products are coming to reject gene-altered food. In the UK, consumer pressure has forced leading supermarkets, restaurants, and even school cafeterias to ban GE foods. In Mexico, where corn is not only a dietary mainstay, but a part of life and folklore, the country’s biggest tortilla maker has said it will stop importing genetically modified grain. Mexico is, incidentally, the third largest importer of US food. Australia has shunned GE foods for much of its produce as well as its world-leading beef exports. Japan’s largest soybean company, Fuji Oil Co. Ltd., agreed in September 1999 to stop manufacturing GE soy protein products. The European Union issued a moratorium on GE crops in June 1999. And several other countries are avoiding imports of GE foods and seeds.

Altering the genetic structure of living organisms through biotechnology is a revolutionary technology whose long-term ramifications are simply not yet known. Some of the risks include: disruption of the ecosystem and food chain leading to loss of biodiversity creation of new weed varieties that are resistant to existing chemicals genetic pollution which could weaken the vigor and fitness of a species disruption of soil ecology and reduction of soil fertility water pollution through increased and long-term use of toxic, carcinogenic, and mutagenic agricultural chemicals crossbreeding between GE plants and wild relatives When genes are injected into another species, a “marker gene” is also included to determine if the gene splicing worked.

By accompanying the insertion gene, the marker gene, which usually provides instructions for antibiotic resistance, enables cells that have taken up the new DNA to survive when grown in the presence of an antibiotic. In this way it can be ascertained which cells have incorporated the new DNA. Cells which do not have these genes do not survive. Marker genes have the potential to produce unexpected results, such as making harmful bacteria in the environment resistant to antibiotics.

Most risky, perhaps, is the fact that once a new gene structure is released into nature, it cannot be recalled. Therefore, new genetically modified life-forms will be unleashed forever-and they may be far from good.

One of the strongest voices warning of the hazards of GE foods is that of John Fagan, a molecular biologist specializing in genetic techniques in cancer research. Increasingly concerned about the dangers of genetic engineering to humans and to the environment, he decided in 1994 to take an ethical stand against genetic applications, returning a $613,882 grant to the National Institutes of Health, withdrawing grant applications worth another $1.25 million, and urging scientists to take safer, more productive research directions. Dr. Fagan has now become one of the major spokespersons calling for better safety and environmental assessment of GE foods, and he was gracious enough to take the time to answer some of Mothering’s questions concerning GE foods and our health.

Dr. Fagan, should we be concerned about GE foods?
Genetic engineering carries a range of consequences when used in agriculture and food production. These occur on human safety, environmental, social-cultural, and economic levels. But let’s focus for the moment on environmental and health concerns. Agricultural genetic engineering threatens to disrupt both our local and global ecosystems, diminishing biodiversity and disrupting the food chain. Recently the work of Dr. Pusztai and Dr. Ewen has shown that genetically engineered foods can be toxic.1 GE foods pose other dangers also to people who eat them. Food quality and nutritive value can be altered, and food allergies can also be a serious concern. Pioneer Hi-Bred, for example, used a brazil-nut gene to enhance soybeans but realized this would cause allergic reactions in those nut-allergic people who ate the soybeans. Fortunately, Pioneer abandoned the soybean-brazil nut experiment when this finding came to light, but assessing allergens and toxins like these is a challenging undertaking, especially when unanticipated.

Soy products are used in many processed foods, and constitute a large part of many vegetarian diets. Are you saying soy may not be safe either?

Conventional soy is a healthy and nutritious addition to anyone’s diet, but 50 percent of the US soybeans are genetically engineered, so this should indeed be a great concern to people who consume soy products. Soy isn’t the only problem, however. Much of our corn and canola supply is genetically modified; canola and corn oils are present in a large variety of processed foods. Laboratory analysis has detected GMOs (genetically modified organisms) in a vast array of processed foods presently sold in food stores.

In this field, our present regulatory system is woefully inadequate. There just hasn’t been any long-term testing carried out on the effects of genetic engineering of food, and the studies that have been conducted study only a piece of nature in isolation from the rest of the world. This limits the scope of the information brought to light by the experiment. Real-world applications of these tests may yield quite different results. At this point in time, scientists just cannot adequately predict how genetic manipulations will influence cellular functioning, the behavior of the organism as a whole, and the ecosystem into which that genetically engineered organism will be introduced.

Furthermore, none of the GE foods on the market today have been tested directly on humans. The human testing normally required for a new food additive is not required for GE foods, and the testing that has been done with laboratory animals is insufficient. I feel strongly that too little research in this area has been completed to assure that either current or potential future applications will be safe. There are just too many unanswered questions for us to be consuming these foods on the scale we are now doing.

But doesn’t GE help agriculture?
Agribusiness seems to think GE makes sense, economically and agriculturally, although we are seeing a rise in farmer concern about GE crops, because of public alarm. Genetically engineering organisms for food production, however, offers, at best, partial solutions to agricultural problems. This benefit/risk ratio is clearly not favorable and does not justify the widespread use of this strategy. As for its economic advances, the claim that GE crops yield more hasn’t been proven in studies that compare GE foods to the top hybrid crops developed through traditional breeding.2 I think a more fruitful direction than GE biotechnology is truly sustainable agriculture.

Some critics of GE foods say human beings are being used as guinea pigs, and indeed this analogy is apt when you consider the lack of long-term testing, and the fact that GE food products are put on the shelves unlabeled for the unwitting consumer to buy.

Unwitting consumer?
Bear in mind that US food manufacturers are not obligated to reveal whether their products are genetically engineered. When you consider all aspects of genetically engineering plants for food production, it becomes clear that the only benefits of this approach are the economic rewards gained by the chemical companies who develop these crops.

Surely the FDA and other regulatory agencies are protecting our food supply!
Not much. Awareness is increasing in the US, but Europeans are more sensitive to food safety issues-due to Britain’s “mad cow disease” scandal and recent controversy in Belgium concerning dioxin-contaminated chickens. Consequently, FDA, EPA, and USDA policy on genetically engineered crops is weak. What little research is presently being done on GE foods is not conducted by the FDA itself. The biotechnology company which is developing a new plant submits its own testing summaries to the FDA, and the FDA bases its approval on this information. You can easily see the shortcomings of this procedure. Not only is the developer also the tester, but the consultation process between the companies and the FDA is voluntary. The FDA has stated that certain food lines do not have to be submitted for approval. A New York Times article recently speculated that the regulatory agencies may just be a “rubber stamp” for corporate agribusiness interests.3

In the past, the FDA has failed to protect the public health on several occasions. DES (diethylstilbestrol) caused cancer in thousands of women. Thalidomide caused serious birth defects. The FDA approved the widespread use of DDT and other pesticides that mimic the function of steroids and damage reproductive function in humans, livestock, and wild animals.

This is all rather terrifying. What can consumers do?
We do not need to wait for scientists to complete many more years of research and development. Consumers can vote with their pocketbooks. We can purchase only certified organic foods or foods that come from known nonbioengineered sources. There appears to be a strong movement in this direction--demand for organic food is reportedly increasing at the rate of 20 percent per annum.

Scientists and agriculturalists also need to move forward much more slowly and methodically, and with greater care. Toward this end, I advocate a moratorium on the large-scale implementation of any genetic technology that might, either intentionally or accidentally, lead to the introduction of genetically engineered genes into the global gene pool of any species-humans, animals, plants, or microorganisms. This moratorium will provide a period during which research can be carried out to assess the safety and appropriateness of genetic technologies. It will also enable our leaders and the public to evaluate all options more systematically before adopting a new technology whose effects are irreversible. This approach has already been implemented de facto in the European Union and more strongly in the UK. I also call for the implementation of safer, more effective technologies such as the ones in sustainable agriculture.

Biotechnology experts estimate that almost 100 percent of all food and fiber could be genetically engineered within the next five years. USDA-, EPA-, or FDA-approved GE products include canola oil, chicory, cotton, papaya, potatoes, soybeans and soy oil, squash, tomatoes, and dairy-including the half a million cows that are regularly injected with recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH). Some biotechnology items coming in the near future: Roundup Ready rice, Roundup Ready wheat, reduced-acidity wine grapes, higher-yielding corn, high starch content potatoes and beans, stress-resistant crops, and freeze-tolerant Atlantic salmon.4

I feel the real future in food production lies in further development of sustainable agricultural strategies, such as crop rotation, crop diversification, and natural pest control methods. The objectives that scientists hope to achieve through genetic manipulations can be accomplished much more simply, safely, and cost-effectively through these strategies. The wide-scale implementation of sustainable methods can be initiated immediately. These methods can meet or exceed the levels of productivity and food quality that genetic engineering aspires to provide. Finally, at the very least GE food should be labeled in the US. A number of other countries have already initiated proposals to label these foods.5 All surveys indicate people want labeling so they can choose to buy or to not buy GE foods. This is important to us because it’s our food supply.

You are a genetic scientist, but you speak out against genetic engineering. Why is this?

I specialized in the genetic engineering approach to cancer research. I am still a molecular biologist with my own lab. I recognize and appreciate the value of this technology. It’s a powerful tool that can be used well or not well. What I’m urging is a much stronger focus on food and environmental safety. It might be a little more expensive and time-consuming, but it will lead to greater consumer acceptance and confidence in the technology. Taking a little more care now may save us from much future grief. This is my concern.

Genetic engineering can have positive applications. It is used in medicine in the manufacture of drugs, hormones, and dietary supplements, and in the development of sensitive diagnostic tests for genetic defects. Such applications don’t involve altering the human genome, nor do they involve the release of genetically engineered organisms into the environment. Therefore, the risks associated with these applications are much smaller than those associated with gene therapy or agricultural genetic engineering.

A list of the corporations involved in commercializing GE agricultural products as of June 1998:

AgrEvo
Agritope
Asgrow
Bejo Zaden
Calgene
Ciba-Geigy
DeKalb
DNA Plant Technology
Du Pont
Asgrow
Monsanto
Mycogen
Northrup King
Novartis
Peto Seed
Plant Genetic Systems
ARhone Poulenc
Seminis Vegetable Seeds
University of Hawaii
Cornell University
Zeneca
Source: Union of Concerned Scientists, Campaign for Food Safety

Notes
1. S. W. B. Ewen and A. Pusztai, “Effect of Diets Containing Genetically Modified Potatoes Expressing Galanthus Nivalis Lectin on Rat Small Intestines,” Lancet 354 (1999): 1353-1354.

2. C. Benbrook, “Evidence of the Magnitude and Consequences of the Roundup Ready Soybean Yield Drag from University-Based Varietal Trials in 1998,” Ag BioTech InfoNet Technical Paper 1, www.biotech-info.net/new.html, July 13, 1999.

3. C. K. Yoon, “A Special Report: Few Federal Checks Exist on the Growing of Crops Whose Genes Are Altered,” New York Times, November 3, 1999.

4. J. T. Barach, “Food Biotechnology Product Update: Pipeline and Beyond,” National Food Processors Association, www.nfpa-food.org/speech/publicvoice/sld001.htm, March 16, 1999.

5. European Union, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, and Australia.

For more information about genetically engineered food, see the following bulletin in a past issue of Mothering: “Baby Food Genetically Altered,” no. 96.