Effect on Biodiversity & Substantial Equivalence

There is a bacterium that is naturally toxic to certain beetles and insects. Scientists have taken the gene that produces the toxin in the bacterium and engineered it into potato and corn plants. Now the potato and corn plants produce the same toxin, so any of the beetles or insects that eat them are poisoned by the toxin in the potato and corn plants. As the plants produce their own insecticide, farmers do not need to spray them with conventional insecticide, with the result that there is less pesticide residue on these plants. In this sense, these GE plants are better for us. But they now contain a gene that produces toxins. Is this good for us?
As well as the target pests, many beneficial beetles and insects are killed. Monarch butterfly larvae died when they came into contact with pollen from GE corn. What will be the effect on beetles, mice, birds, etc. that eat the beetles and insects that have been poisoned by the toxin in the potatoes and corn? In other words, what will be the effect on the environment? Some fear that proliferation of GE crops may result in huge losses of biodiversity and all the dangers that entails.
The GE potatoes and GE corn just mentioned are meant to reduce the need for pesticide. Other plants are genetically engineered to withstand pesticide. A gene that is naturally resistant to Monsanto's Roundup herbicide has been inserted into canola. So a farmer can spray a field of GE canola with almost as much Roundup as he/she likes, and while the weeds will be killed, the canola will be unaffected. So herbicide-resistant GE crops may encourage farmers to use more pesticide. There would be more pesticide residue on these crops.
In some places, the bacteria needed for breaking down vegetable matter so that the soil is fertilized are being wiped out by excessive use of Roundup. The soil is becoming inert, and so much so that dead weeds do not rot.
When a farmer harvests a crop like soy, some falls on to the ground and may remain there till the following growing season, when it may grow spontaneously. If the farmer is growing a different crop, the soy is now unwanted, a weed, and the farmer may want to kill it with herbicide. Herbicide-resistant GE soy cannot be killed with ordinary herbicide and farmers in Argentina, for example, use a potent cocktail of different chemicals, including 2-4,D and, it is thought, Paraquat. This cocktail is causing environmental havoc. Some of the chemicals are blown by the wind on to neighboring fields, into streams and lakes, and on to people. It is causing skin blemishes on children, farm animals to be born deformed, bananas to sprout from the middle of the branch instead of the top, lakes filled with dead fish.


The biotechnology industry claims that genetic engineering is just like traditional breeding, i.e., GE plants are substantially equivalent to non-GE plants and, therefore, that they do not need any extra regulation. This is obviously misleading.
In traditional breeding, members of the same or very similar species are crossed to create offspring with some novel trait. This greatly limits the genes that can be combined. Furthermore, when different but similar species are crossed, their offspring are generally infertile, preventing inter-species gene combinations from propagating in the wild. For example, a donkey and a mare can make a mule, but the mule will be infertile, the end of the line for the combined genes.
Genetic engineering smashes these natural barriers. Using gene insertion, any gene from any plant, animal, bacterium, fungus or virus can be inserted into the DNA in reproductive cells of any other organism. If the resulting organism survives, it generally can pass on its altered DNA, along with and new traits, through normal reproduction. For example, genetic engineering enables scientists to create pigs which have human genes, genes which will be passed on to future generations.
So GE plants and animals are not substantially equivalent to non-GE varieties. But are they safe for us to eat? Do they need extra regulation?
There are indications that they may not be safe. An English scientist reported that rats fed GE potatoes developed cancerous tumors. The rats' brain size also decreased. The same scientist also fed GE tomatoes to rats. 7 out of 20 rats developed stomach lesions and died.
There are also problems within the Food and Drug Agency, the US agency with responsibility for regulating food. Because of inadequate legislation in the US, Monsanto's New Leaf Superior GE potato is not regulated. The potato has been genetically engineered to poison and kill the Colorado potato beetle. Because it produces its own toxin, the potato is registered as a pesticide. The FDA does not regulate the potato because it does not have authority to regulate pesticides. That is the Environment Protection Agency's job, but the EPA says the potato is a food.
The first GE crop to be commercialized, the Flavr Savr tomato, did not pass the required toxicological tests. Secret memoranda from the FDA reveal that the agency ignored warnings from its own senior scientists who pointed out that GE is risky. What is behind this situation? For one thing, there is a very close link between the biotechnology industry and the US government. The biotech industry has been well represented in President Bush's cabinet. Secretaries of Defence, Health, and Agriculture, the Attorney General and the chairperson of the House Agriculture Committee have had connections with Monsanto or the wider industry.
But would the manufacturer be irresponsible? Monsanto president has been quoted as saying, "Safety is the Government's responsibility."
So we do not know for sure if GE foods are safe. They may turn out to be harmful. There are many examples of new technologies hailed at first as great benefits to humankind, but later realized to be anything but a benefit. The effects of DDT were not known for decades. Likewise Thalidomide, which caused deformities in more than 100,000 babies. At the time of its approval in the EU and Canada, tests in laboratory animals showed no negative effects. Thalidomide's damage was revealed only over time, not in the drug's users, but in their children.
There is already at least one new disease linked to GE food. In 1989 eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome (EMS) hit the US. 37 people died and 1,500 were permanently disabled. EMS was linked to the consumption of a dietary supplement called L-Tryptophan. The batch of L-Tryptophan implicated in the outbreak was traced to Showa Denko, which had recently introduced a new genetically engineered bacterium into its production process.