Genetic Engineering: Flying Pigs and Suicide Seeds

Genetic Engineering (GE) otherwise known as Genetic Modification or Genetic Manipulation (GM) has had enough exposure in the media over the last few years to ensure that most of us have at least heard of it, even if we have a limited understanding of what it is and the implications of its use. Familiar terms such as "frankenfoods" have been coined and used by those opposed to the introduction and spread of this biotechnology. The terms "Terminator genes" and "suicide seeds" are less well known. We will briefly look at these later.

But firstly, what does this term genetic engineering actually mean?

In its simplest form GE involves the removal of a particular gene from one species of life and inserting it into another totally unrelated life form. Genes are biological units of heredity, or traits of behaviour if you like. They determine which traits are inherited and they control all the activities that take place within the life form over the period of its lifetime. Herein lies the reason why pigs cannot fly and birds can. The "flight gene", as nature intended it, is not part of the inherited blueprint of the life form we call a pig.

Since 1973 scientists have been able to alter the natural inherited behaviour of a life form or organism, by adding genes from another totally unrelated life form. This causes the organism to behave in ways that nature did not intend. And no, as far as I am aware they haven’t yet developed the flying pig.

Genetic Engineering does not in any way resemble traditional breeding techniques. Traditional breeding techniques operate within established natural boundaries allowing reproduction to take place only between closely related forms. Dairy farmers cross genes from high milk yielding cows with genes from high butterfat yielding cows to produce cows that give lots of milk with high butterfat content. These genes are selected from the ‘gene pool’ of available cow genes. Pigs are bred from a gene pool of available pig genes. However we don’t mate cows with pigs. The gene pools remain separate.

Different species of tomatoes can cross-pollinate to produce a more frost-hardy species. Always there are natural groupings with clearly defined boundaries finely tuned to work harmoniously together by millions of years of evolution. Genetic Engineering, on the other hand, attempts to transfer genes between unrelated species that would never crossbreed in nature. Fish genes are inserted into mice or tomatoes and bacterial genes into maize. One of the concerns of many in the scientific community is that this can give rise to potential health risks. When this biotechnology enters the food chain, the impacts on our health are largely unpredictable. An amino acid supplement that was engineered using GE bacteria caused many deaths and deformities. The Flavr Savr, a tomato genetically modified to increase its shelf life, induced stomach lesions when fed to experimental rats and was later withdrawn from the market. Soybeans engineered with a gene from Brazil nuts caused allergic reactions in people sensitive to nuts, and the list of failures goes on.

The fact that natural evolution proceeds at a much slower pace than technology makes this all the more alarming. By unnaturally manipulating our environment and the foods we consume without a true understanding of the consequences, it may be a generation or more before any devastating effects are realized, and probably then too late to reverse them.

Apart from the potential dangers to our health, Genetic Engineering poses other threats as well. One of the growing industries across the world is a return to organic agriculture. As consumers become aware of the risks associated with toxic pesticides and herbicides, both to human health and the environment, the demand for chemical free products increases. Organic food is safer, as organic farming prohibits synthetic pesticide use. Governing bodies have been set up to oversee and regulate this industry. These bodies certify that their members do not use synthetic chemicals in the production of their products. These products comprise foodstuffs, personal care products, cosmetics and the like. Certified organic status also implies freedom from Genetically Engineered ingredients, additives etc. Farms with certified organic status risk losing this hard earned status if genetically engineered crops are grown nearby because of cross contamination.

Earlier this year anti-GM lobbyists won a landmark battle against one tentacle of the procession of Genetic Modification. The major suppliers of poultry products in Australia agreed to ban GM grain from their animal feed. "Thousands of shoppers, organised by Greenpeace, and a coalition of others, scored a decisive victory for honesty, food safety and quality today," says GeneEthics Network Director, Bob Phelps.1

However, the war continues and many other battlefronts are looming. According to the website of Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), Dow Agro Sciences is seeking approval for food derived from insect-protected, glufosinate ammonium-tolerant corn line DAS-59122-7. This is a genetically modified corn and, as such, requires FSANZ to conduct a pre-market safety assessment before it can be sold in Australia and New Zealand.2

Also, Unilever Australia Limited has requested that an ice structuring protein (ISP) be approved as a processing aid for the manufacture of ice cream and edible ices. The ISP is produced from a genetically modified bakers’ yeast. The ISP is identical to a fish protein that is found in nature and is already in the food supply. FSANZ has identified no public health or safety concerns with its proposed use and believes that its use is technologically justified. 3

And, in February of this year FSANZ releaseddetails of an application by Monsanto Australia Limited to approve the sale of food derived from a genetically modified (GM) cotton line.

This variety of cotton has been genetically modified for tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate. This would enable cotton farmers to control weeds with the herbicide without affecting the cotton crop. 4

According to some sources, glyphosate-tolerant weeds are plaguing GM cotton crops in the United States. Cottonseed oil is used in food products such as margarine, salad oil, mayonnaise, chocolate products and salad dressings. It is also used commercially for frying fish, potato chips, donuts etc.

For thousands of years farmers have saved some of the seeds from their crops to plant in the following seasons. This has proved essential to the maintenance and further evolution of agricultural diversity worldwide and is the basis of food security. All this is now in jeopardy with the advent of terminator technology, officially known as Genetic Use Restriction Technologies (GURTS).

Terminator seeds (or "suicide seeds") are genetically engineered to be sterile and thereby prevent farmers from saving seed. Some scientists express a concern about what could happen if the terminator is unleashed on the environment. The fear is that terminator technology could migrate from one farm to another, or from a farm to wild plants. This is an extremely risky and controversial technology. Currently under an international ban, this technology, if allowed to be introduced by the powerful biotech companies would enable corporate monopoly control of global food and fibre production, by preventing seed saving. Since 1998, only public opposition to GURTS has so far curtailed its introduction and only continued public opposition will maintain the ban. Once the ban is lifted, it will be almost impossible to reverse it. And who will benefit from its introduction? Not the farmers, not the environment, not the consumers. The only winners appear to be a handful of biotech and agribusiness companies!

As yet, GM crops have failed to deliver the promised benefits to farmers and are if fact posing escalating problems for them. GM crops have not been proven safe. On the contrary, sufficient evidence has emerged to raise serious safety concerns, that if ignored could result in irreversible damage to human and animal health and the environment. GM crops pose a continuing threat to non-GM and organic agriculture.

On the other hand sustainable agriculture poses none of the threats associated with GM. Research shows that sustainable agriculture results in higher productivity and yields especially in the Third World. Continued practice results in better quality soils, a reduction in soil erosion, a cleaner and safer environment with a reduction in pesticide use without a subsequent increase in pests. Sustainable agriculture leads to healthier and tastier foods with higher nutritional values. Anyone who has eaten home grown strawberries and other produce, grown without the use of artificial chemicals, will attest to this.

Once released, genetically engineered organisms become part of our ecosystem. Unlike some forms of pollution which may be contained or which may decrease over time, any mistakes we make now will be passed on to all future generations of life. With governments following their own agendas and capitulating to corporate interests, it is up to us to act.

Bill Statham is the author of "The Chemical Maze – Your Guide to Food Additives and Cosmetic Ingredients"

End notes and references
1 Extract from News Media Release Friday February 11, 2005, "Shoppers have GE-free poultry win"
2 From the website of Food Standards Australia New Zealand
3 & 4 Ibid "Seeds of Deception", the No. 1 bestselling book critical of genetically engineered foods by Jeffrey M. Smith

GeneEthics Network
Food for Thought By Mitch Harper
GM Watch