Crossed Genes

When genetically modified organisms (GMOs) combine with the natural processes of cross-pollination, the results could lead to irreversible consequences for our health and the environment.

Nature has always been able to adapt itself, enabling the best chance of survival in a particular environment. And for thousands of years, humans have manipulated nature to produce new breeds of plants and animals. While the process of change is accelerated, it is still evolutionary in that nature could have eventually created the new breeds.

However, the process of genetic engineering is vastly different because the results could never be created naturally. A foreign gene sequence, for example taken from a fish or virus, is inserted into a plant genome, supplying properties that nature could not. Plants can be genetically modified to make their own insecticide, resist diseases, tolerate herbicides, adapt to a specific environment, or contain nutritional supplements.

Proponents claim that the hunger crisis and malnourishment in developing nations can be solved by GMOs. Bigger yields will prevent food shortages, while crops containing certain health-giving nutrients will be able to improve the health of disadvantaged peoples. According to the United Nations two million children die each year from vitamin A deficiency and others suffer eyesight problems. ‘Golden Rice’ has been genetically engineered to contain vitamin A, to combat these problems. With such altruistic intent, it is hard to imagine that anyone would oppose GMOs.

However, opponents argue that there are non-GMO solutions to these problems. Redistribution of wealth will solve the poverty issues that lead to starvation and a return to biodiversity of crops will solve the malnutrition problems that current mono-cereal production practices cause.

There are many health and environmental issues that need to be resolved, before embracing this technology. Renowned geneticist and environmentalist, David Suzuki, while finding the genetic engineering of plants exciting, calls for caution due to the potential for uncontrollable environmental consequences.

Certain crops have been genetically modified to produce their own insecticide, preventing attacks by specific pests, like cotton that is resistant to the helicoverpa moth. This particular type of cotton has allowed Australian farmers to reduce crop spraying from eighteen to three, per growing season. These farmers have also been able to switch to pest-specific insecticides that leave beneficial insects unharmed. The advantages seem obvious.

But studies into the effect of pollen contamination and the Monarch butterfly have shown that non-targeted pests can be harmed. Seventy percent of the Monarch larvae, in the study, died after eating milkweed that carried pollen from Bt corn. This corn had been modified to contain the pest-fighting Bt gene.

Some scientists are concerned that plants engineered to produce their own insecticide, will speed up the process of resistance. The targeted pests may become resistant more quickly because the plants are constantly making their own insecticide, leading to the need for more or stronger insecticides.

Herbicide-resistant crops are supposed to reduce the amount of herbicides used by farmers, but several studies found the opposite happening. Farmers are likely to be careless with crop spraying, since the herbicides cannot harm their crops. Analysis of university research trials on Roundup Ready soy beans, found that farmers were using two to five times the amount of herbicide, than they would have used on non-herbicide resistant crops.

While increasing chemical use has immediate health and environmental implications, the problem of weeds and insects developing resistance will have devastating future consequences because stronger chemicals may be needed for control. Increased chemical exposure in the lower end of the food chain creates problems for animals in the upper end, due to biomagnification. The near, world-wide demise of the Peregrine Falcon was caused by contamination of the food chain, from the pesticide DDT. Can we really afford another mistake like this?

The impact of the increased topical use of chemicals to control insects and weeds has on health and the environment is well understood, but we cannot claim to understand the potential hazards that genetically-embedded chemicals might have. While we can stop using topically applied chemicals should their detrimental effects be too great, withdrawing GMOs deemed to be a risk will be more difficult.

The most significant problem is in the natural process of cross-pollination in an uncontrollable environment. There have been numerous reported cases where genetically-modified genes have been found in non-genetically engineered plants, of the same or similar species. Danish field trials found an herbicide-resistant gene from genetically-engineered rape in a closely-related plant, which could have produced a ‘superweed’.

There has also been the recent discovery of the contamination of commercial long-grain rice from an unapproved, genetically-altered rice variety, Liberty Link 601 (LL 601). While Bayer CropScience claims there are no known health risks with LL 601, the question of how cross-pollination of a non-approved GMO could occur requires investigation.

Cross-pollination has severe economic consequences for growers of non-GMO crops. Organic farmers are under strict guidelines for insecticide and herbicide use. If their crops become infected with an insecticide-producing GMO, they will lose their organic certification. The traditional seed-saving practices of farmers are also under threat from genetically modified crops if seed varieties, which have taken generations to develop, are contaminated by GMO pollen.

Farmers, whose crops have been contaminated from genetically modified pollen, can be fined or required to pay royalties to the corporation owning the GMO patent. Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser was forced to pay Monsanto for ‘intellectual property’ theft because it was discovered that he was growing a genetically modified crop. But Schmeiser argued that he never planted the seeds and pollen-drift must have been the cause. What happened to his right to grow non-GMO crops?

The recent discovery of cross-contamination of rice crops by LL 601 is already causing problems for farmers, exporters, as well as food and beverage makers. The Japanese and European markets do not import genetically modified crops, so Japan has suspended US rice imports, while European Union is insisting on testing imported grains.

Buffer zones are supposed to eliminate cross-pollination, but are often ineffective because light pollens can be carried great distances by the wind, birds or animals. And while there are rules relating to monitoring practices, they are inadequate.

A recent report reveals the inadequacy of the US Animal Health and Plant Health Inspection Service in monitoring GMO crop test sites. They lacked even basic information about location, as well as growing and disposal methods for non-food crops. Companies,growing non-food crops are not required to record efforts of segregation or to monitor neighbouring fields for cross-contamination.

Cross-pollination also eliminates consumer choice. Australia and New Zealand labelling laws indicate if a product contains any ingredients from genetically-modified sources. Many consumers choose not to buy products that contain any genetically modified ingredients and are lobbying for more comprehensive labelling laws. But labelling laws will effectively become obsolete if contamination of non-GMO crops becomes wide-spread; potentially all foods will contain GMOs.

Cross-pollination isn’t to blame for any negative consequences from GMOs, its just nature at work. Humans must take responsibility for what they unleash into the environment.