IOIA Technical Advisory Panel

GMO's

Intro
Myths of Biotech
References
Update of Worldwide GM Food Labeling Rules

What is Biotech?
Biological Technology, Biotech is a general "umbrella" term referring to technologies that are applied to biological precessies. For purposes of this paper it is the study and application of gene manipulation between and among living organisms. (Genomics or marker assisted breeding, which does not involve gene insertions, would be another; and cloning would be another). Basically, we are looking at the altering of an organism's DNA by imposing, splicing or inserting genetic material from another species or form of life (animal to plant, human to animal, another plant family, etc.), or the altering of DNA by cutting and "re-connecting" an organism's DNA into a different order. The discipline for this is referred to as Genetic Engineering, or GE. It is little known that the technique has been in use for over 20 years and that our lives are touched and influenced by it every day.

How is Genetic Modification done?
The nucleus of a cell, animal or plant, insect or bacteria or submicroscopic microbe and fungi, contains the DNA which determines the function and characteristics of that body of which it is a part. Genetic Engineering alters that DNA, either by "inserting" some portion of a foreign DNA into that nucleus, thereby initiating some change in the function and/or characteristic of the body (animal or vegetable) of which it is a part, or removing some portion of the DNA so that it reconnects with a changed purpose. (Organisms that have been "engineered" in this way are known as Genetically Modified Organisms", or GMO's).

The "Vector": The method for doing the "insertion" requires that the cell be "invaded" (cells do not like to be invaded and they are programmed to reject foreign materials). Since we know that viruses are capable of invading cells then why not use a virus to help us do the invading. Makes a lot of sense, scientifically, and that is exactly what is used in the most common method for genetic modification. The virus, in this case referred to as a "Vector", has the desired genetic material attached to it with the idea that the vector will invade the cell and permit the desired gene to insert itself and bring about the desired modification. The common virus used is Cauliflower Mosaic Virus.

The "Marker": Some way to determine the success of the modification is now necessary. An additional material is placed into this mass that is being inserted. This material, in this case called the "marker", is something that can be tested for and, if present, indicates that the modification has taken place successfully. The material used for the marker is an antibiotic.

The Modification: Not one, but usually several different antibiotics are plugged into the cell along with the desired gene and the vector. When the process is successful every cell in the resultant organism contains, to some degree, the sought for characteristic as well as the antibiotic(s) and the virus. The DNA string has been irreversibly altered, often containing more or less chromosomes than the normal, natural organism.

Rate of Success: The rate of success is very low and it varies with the individual application. Published figures indicate that the rate of success is as good as one chance in fifty to as poor as one chance in thousands.

The "Gene Gun": Another technique used in commercial applications, is the "Gene Gun". This device, developed (with funding from the Biotech industries) at Cornell University, is actually a form of shotgun that fires the material into the cell. The technique utilizes minute metal "shot" which have had the genetic material, markers, etc., coated on the surface. The shot are loaded into the gun and fired, at high velocity, into the cell. The hope is that one of the coated shot pieces will penetrate the cell nucleus and start the modification. The gun is loaded with literally thousands of these minute metal shots, and the rate of accuracy is even lower than the common technique of vectoring. It has been described as like using a slingshot to hurl a refrigerator at a 10-story building and hoping it goes through the right window.

Some of the Myths About Biotech:
"GE is not new, it is simply selective breeding (hybridizing) speeded up"
It can be agreed that GE is certainly a faster method of breeding something new. It cannot be agreed that it is the same as developing a hybrid as an intentional act, or through nature.

• Traditional selective breeding entails crossing parents of the same or closely related species to obtain a desired change in a characteristic. The offspring of the breeding contains chromosomes from both parents and are of the natural x-y makeup.
• GE entails crossing completely different organisms. GE does not entail crossing parents of the same or closely related species, nor does it entail even crossing a plant with a plant of anywhere near the same species. Rather; bacteria, fish, animals, humans, insects, viruses, antibiotics, etc., are all used in crosses with plants and with other of these life forms. The resultant offspring contain the desired gene, the virus vector gene and the various antibiotics used in the splicing, in every cell of their makeup. Also, the offspring are not usually of the natural x-y makeup.
  

"Biotech will feed the world"
The truth is that over 30% of the food produced around the world is wasted, most of it never reaching the dinner tables. There are over 3500 daily calories per person available right now in grains alone. Add fruits and vegetables to that and there are over 4 pounds of food available for each and every person on the earth, every day. And that doesn't include meats. The countries where hunger is the most severe are, most of them, exporting much of the food produced there rather than giving it to the people who need it. One reason for this is that these countries, most of them developing nations, need the revenue to pay off the development loans to the wealthier nations. Also, most of the starving people are too poor to even buy food. Some countries are so corrupt that any aid or agricultural product is usurped and sold on the black market or kept for the privileged few, never getting to the needy.

Proponents of GE point to the fact that the world population is increasing at an alarming rate and, now at about 6 billion people, will reach 10 billion by 2050. The implied assumption in the Biotech industry claim is that there cannot be enough food produced for that number of people unless we adopt GE foods. Alternatives are being ignored for the sake of profit.

"GE foods will give higher yields (and cost less to produce, etc, etc.)"
The truth of this is that studies, like one done at the University of Nebraska, show that yields are actually reduced. Side by side GE crops and those grown either organically or conventionally prove that the non-GE crops out produce the GE crops, acre for acre. It is a known fact that GE seeds are more expensive than conventional seeds. In an attempt to build more appeal the Biotech companies said it would result in maximization of yields on arable land and reduce the pressure to use marginal land, thus contributing to wildlife habitat.

"GE foods are good for you"

• Some of these crops contain a toxic protein genetically introduced into each and every cell.
• Most of these products have a built in antibiotic markers in every cell and are being proven to cause health problems of many types, particularly in children.
• Most of these products contain traces of the virus used for weakening the cell.
• The crops that are engineered to be resistant to toxic herbicides and pesticides are; therefore, heavily sprayed.
• Independent laboratory analysis proves that GE foods are actually lower in nutrition than organically grown or conventionally grown foods.
• Some of these foods contain hidden bombs for people with allergies. Severe reaction to more than one food has been traced back to the fact that the gene used to obtain the desired result in the product was from a source that individuals could be allergic to, and it could even be fatal. In one case, for example, a gene from Brazil nuts was used as a source. Some people who are sensitive to the nuts had serious allergic reactions. Legally, food product labels do not have to indicate that the food contains genetically modified ingredients. Also, in these cases, the source of the gene is not required to be listed as an ingredient. (The FDA has ruled that identifying genetically modified foods on labels is voluntary. At the same time they ruled that if a producer wanted to claim that a food was GMO free they would be required to maintain records and submit proof thereof.)
• Many people by culture or religious beliefs do not eat certain foods. They are eating many of those foods without knowing because the forbidden DNA is being moved into foods they have considered appropriate for untold generations.
  

"GE foods will result in a reduction of the use of (toxic) chemicals in conventional farming"
Studies over the several years that GE products have been grown show that there has not been any reduction is the use of these chemicals. Rather, there has been an increase in the application of many. Statistics published by our own government agencies are proving this. We use over 8 billion pounds of just the active ingredients in chemicals every year, 20 pounds for every man, woman and child in this country

"GE production is more efficient (in use of resources, etc.)"
There is no proof that this is anywhere near the realm of truth. As a matter of fact, farmers who have been raising insect resistant varieties of some crops are reporting a new phenomenon, a secondary wave of harmful insects, which appear impervious to the genetically spliced in toxin, are further reducing their yields. Also, certain so-called "super weeds" are cropping up due to unintended cross pollination with the engineered resistant crops.

"GE is a controlled, reliable process"
Scientists on both sides of the issue admit that the technique is far from reliable, let alone predictable. The ratio of "successful" modification is extremely low and, particularly in experiments to make "better" animals, many gross and inhuman mutations have occurred. The description of the process that was explained earlier pretty much verifies that it is an unpredictable, unreliable process.

• Richard Lewontin, Professor of Genetics at Harvard said: "We have such a miserably poor understanding of how the organism develops [re: GE] from its DNA that I would be surprised if we don't get one rude shock after another".
• Joan Dye Gussow, Professor Emeritus of Nutrition and Education, Columbia University; and past member of NOSB and one time member of FDA review board refers to Biotech (with regard to the environment) as "Nature as a Lego Toy". She says, paraphrased, "We can never outwit nature in the long run, current science (GE) is possibly the final rip - if we win against Mother Nature, we die". She has likened GE as the kin to our destruction of the ozone layer; we may already have ripped too much.

"GE foods will be able to deliver vitamins and medicines, particularly important in countries where known deficiencies are causing high mortality and illnesses"
The truth is that in the nearly 20 years that the Biotech research around the world has been working on this, there is not one development, not one crop that can successfully do this. Also, most of the medicines are (or need to be) administered on an individual basis. Does a child require the dosage of an adult? What is the risk to an elderly person or a pregnant woman, in a country where the literacy rate is very low?

"GE will give you more choices"
The only choices arising out of this so far is a proliferation of brand and variety names, nothing one would consider a bonafide choice.

"GE is safe"
Nothing in the eminent domain is a safe thing if it contains the slightest risk of being used carelessly or for the wrong reasons. There is a played down concern that some sociopath with the technology could do irreparable harm to people or the environment. The more present threat; however, is that which has arisen from the greed of the proponents. As for the resultant effect on our health for our consumption of GE foods, there has been little independent testing. The proponents, the large companies who have spent billions of dollars in development, claim to have done testing and they claim that it is safe.

References:
NABC Report 10; National Agricultural Biotechnology and Environmental Quality: Gene Escape and Pest Resistance. Published by The National Agricultural Biotechnology Council, 1998.

NABC Report 6; Agricultural Biotechnology and the Public Good. Published by The National Agricultural Biotechnology Council, 1994.

Yes! A Journal of Positive Futures, Summer 2000, Issue #14. Published by the Positive Futures Network.

Safe Food News, Published by Mothers for Natural Law of the Natural Law Party, 2000.

Growing for Market, Volume 9 Number 12, December 2000.Published by Fairplain Publications.

The Natural Farmer, Winter 1999-2000.

Personal notes taken in attendance at the NRAES Conference "Biotechnology: Progress or Problem?" January 17 - 19, 2001, Binghamton, New York.

Personal notes taken in attendance at the 10 Annual Pennsylvania Association for Sustainable Agriculture "Food in Our Commonwealth: Beyond Business as Usual". February 9,10, 2001, Penn State