The genetiX snowball campaign is calling for a five year moratorium on the deliberate release of GM plants in Britain, except for government sponsored ecological health and safety tests (in enclosed systems); and the removal of all GM crops already existing.
For more than a year now I have been concerned about the deliberate release of genetically modified plants into the environment. There are many unanswered questions about the basic science behind this technology and I believe that until we have answers to these questions genetic engineering should be kept in the laboratory. The biotechnology companies and our government appear to be anxious to push the technology forward before these questions are answered, paying no heed to the fact that once released into the environment, genetic mistakes cannot be recalled, cleaned up or allowed to decay but will be passed on to future generations indefinitely.
The proponents of genetic modification of food crops claim that it is safe, more precise and a natural extension of traditional cross-breeding methods and that all they are doing is giving nature a helping hand.
This is not the case - genetic engineering permits the transfer of genes between totally unrelated organisms, circumventing natural species barriers e.g. the introduction of a fish gene, the "antifreeze" gene of the arctic flounder into tomatoes and strawberries. This crossing of species barriers is something that would never happen by traditional breeding methods.
The method of introduction of the new gene is not at all precise. The new gene is randomly incorporated (spliced) into the plant's own DNA, it could end up anywhere, next to any gene or even within one of the plant's own genes. Genes do not work in isolation and the activity of each gene is affected by its neighbours. The random splicing of the new gene into the plant may cause a totally unpredictable disturbance to the normal function and regulation of the plant's own genes. Further, the introduced gene may not work in the same way in its new host. The antifreeze gene in the arctic flounder has evolved to work with the other genes in that fish; there is no way to predict whether it will work in exactly the same way with no unwanted side effects in the tomato or strawberry where it will be in a new environment surrounded by the host plant's genes.
Although there has so far been limited exposure of humans to GM foods there is already evidence of risks to human health.
Due to the unpredictable pattern of gene expression and function there is the potential for the production of unexpected proteins and novel toxins in GM food crops.
For example, when a gene from the brazil nut was introduced into the soybean, people allergic to brazil nuts were also found to be allergic to the GM soya. Fortunately allergies to brazil nut proteins were well known and were tested for leading to the swift withdrawal of the GM soya. It is, however, possible that unknown allergens could be developed unintentionally in GM foods, as tests for allergenicity are targeted at known allergens and are not designed to reveal new allergens. Food allergies are increasing, the development of GM foods with the potential for the presence of novel proteins will only exacerbate the problem.
In 1989 there was an epidemic of a new disease, eosinophilia myalgia syndrome. The disease was traced to the consumption of a food supplement derived from bacteria genetically engineered to overproduce the aminoacid, L-tryptophan. The excessive amounts of L-tryptophan in the bacterial cells led to the formation of a novel toxin, which contaminated the final product. Of the 5,000 people who contracted the disease, 37 died and 1,500 are permanently disabled.
A GM yeast engineered for better fermentation of beer and bread was found to have abnormally high levels of a metabolite, methyl glyoxal, a chemical known to cause damage to DNA. The scientists who carried out this work believe that the risk assessments required by the present regulatory system, which are based on the principle of substantial equivalence (i.e. that the new food even though it is GM is substantially the same as foods already available for consumption), would not have required testing for the chemical which damages DNA, even though it has the potential to cause cancers.
Genetic modification of food crops involves the transfer of a foreign gene into the host plant cell by a carrier, known as a vector, such as a virus or other infectious agent. While natural vectors respect species barriers, the artificial vectors made by genetic engineers are designed to cross these barriers, thus greatly enhancing the potential for creating new and possibly more virulent viral and bacterial pathogens which can in turn infect humans and animals.
As the process for adding new genes to host plant cells is random, genetic engineers add "marker" genes at the same time so that they can tell which plant cells have been genetically modified. The commonest marker gene used is an antibiotic resistance gene. Instead of removing the gene after the research stage the scientists have left it in the host plant cells and a number of GE crops currently on trial contain the antibiotic resistance gene. There is growing concern that the use of antibiotic resistance marker genes in GM crops will exacerbate the already serious problem of antibiotic resistant infectious disease, for example by the spread of antibiotic resistance to human and animal gut microorganisms after eating GM crops.
The development of genetic engineering and GM food crops poses a serious risk to the environment, our agriculture and will lead to a loss of biodiversity
The main focus of the biotechnology companies so far has been on the creation of crops resistant to herbicides, particularly glyphosate (e.g. Monsanto's Round-up Ready Soya) and glufosinate (e.g. AgrEvo's glufosinate resistant oil seed rape). This approach is flawed at a fundamental level as the production of herbicide resistant GM crops encourages farmers to look upon the use of herbicides as the first choice for weed control, rather than as one of a number of options. Monsanto has applied in several countries for a relaxation in environmental legislation to allow a 200 fold increase in glyphosate residues in soya, an indication that Monsanto acknowledge, contrary to their recent advertising campaign, that use of GM crops will increase herbicide usage. Increased use of herbicides will mean not only higher residues in food but also serious losses of weeds within crops, around field edges and in hedgerows, all very important food sources for wildlife. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, together with other conservation bodies, is calling for a moratorium on commercial growing of GM crops because of their concerns about the effects of increased herbicide usage on food sources for birds.
Genes move between plants by cross-pollination-a process known as horizontal gene transfer. GM oil seed rape, which has been modified with a gene for herbicide resistance, has been shown to cross pollinate with ordinary oil seed rape growing 2.5 km away from the GM crop. It is highly likely that when GM oil seed rape is planted on a large scale all oil seed rape will rapidly become contaminated with the modified genes. Organic standards do not allow GM materials in organic produce and so farmers will be unable to grow organic oil seed rape. Oil seed rape, including GM oil seed rape, also cross pollinates very easily with wild relatives such as wild turnip and wild radish. These wild relatives will become herbicide resistant when they cross pollinate with the GM oil seed rape, creating "super weeds".
Some crops have been designed to be resistant to pests by the incorporation of genes which produce proteins which are toxic to insects. For example Novartis have produced a GM maize plant with genes for the production of Bt toxin. Bt toxin is a very effective bio-pesticide used by organic farmers on a "one-off" basis to kill insect pests. In GM crops with the Bt gene, the gene is never switched off and so the plant produces low levels of Bt continuously. This is a very effective way to put an adaptive pressure on the insect pests to become resistant to Bt, thereby creating "super bugs" and removing from organic farmers the use of a very effective pesticide. In addition the newly incorporated toxins may be harmful to beneficial insects either directly or indirectly. For example, green lacewings, beneficial predators that fed on cornborers, which had in turn fed on Novartis' Bt maize showed increased mortality when compared to cornborers that had fed on conventional maize.
Honey bees are the primary pollinators of oil seed rape and it is likely that honey from a hive close to a GM oil seed rape field will contain large amounts of GM pollen. This GM pollen may introduce into the honey as yet unknown proteins that could have toxic or allergenic effects on humans and bees. Beekeepers producing honey from a hive close to a GM crop field will not be able to claim that their honey is organic because of the high risk that it will contain GM pollen.
Natural transformation, the ability of bacteria to actively take up free DNA, is a method by which plant DNA can be transferred to bacteria. Around 40 species of bacteria, some of which are soil or water-borne, are known to have the ability for natural transformation. It has been shown in scientific experiments that horizontal gene transfer from GM plants (in that case GM sugarbeet) to bacteria can occur. It is likely that gene pollution carried by soil and water borne bacteria will spread for many miles around GM crop fields.
I am trained as a toxicologist and although I am no longer working in the field I have read a number of research papers and have spoken with several genetic scientists. As a result I believe that this technology has serious implications for public health, the environment, agriculture and our economy. The public have not been adequately consulted despite a Mori poll showing that 77% of the public believe there should be a ban on growing GM crops in Britain. The biotechnology companies involved have not agreed to take responsibility if anything goes wrong. The democratic process has failed and it is for this reason that I am taking part in this campaign of civil responsibility.
In taking this action I believe I am acting responsibly as I believe that by removing the GM oilseed rape plants from the ground and arranging for their safe disposal I will protect the land and crops of neighbouring farmers and land owners. I believe the land and crops to be in immediate need of protection because the GM plants are just about to flower and the GM pollen will cross pollinate with neighbouring crops, causing transfer of genes from the GM crop to the neighbouring land and crops. I believe that my removal of the GM plants is a reasonable action to take in the circumstances.
I also believe that the companies who have planted GM crops have committed the offence of criminal damage by being reckless as to the risk of damage to neighbouring farm land, animals and crops as a consequence of gene transfer from their test field sites
I intend to accept any consequences of my action and I will explain in public my reasons for doing this act which I believe to be lawful. I hope that my actions will encourage other ordinary people to join with us to take responsibility for stopping this technology from destroying our environment and endangering our food and our health.
"I believe, that only if we live our visions here and now will what we believe in actually come true" Eva Marberg
This site is hosted on the Free Range Activism Website