Ethics and Genetic Engineering
Sean McDonagh SSC.
The May 22, 2005 issue of the The Independent on Sunday carried a front page story about experiments conducted by the giant agribusiness Monsanto which involved feeding GM corn to rats. The research showed that : rats fed with a diet rich in genetically engineered corn (GE) development abnormalities to internal organs and changes to their blood. These rats had smaller kidneys and variations in the composition of their blood. According to the leaked 1,130 pageconfidential report, these health problems were absent from another batch of rodents fed non-GM food as part of the research.
Dr. Vyvyan Howard, a senior lecturer on human anatomy at LiverpoolUniversity called for the publication of the full study and he believed there was a prima faciecause for concern. Another expert in molecular genetics, Dr. Michael Antoniu, of Guy's HospitalMedicalSchool described the findings as, very worrying from a medical point of view. He added, I am amazed at the number of significant differences they found (in the rat experiment).
Predictably Monsanto dismissed their own research on the abnormalities in rats as meaningless and, possibly, due to chance. However, those who have opposed the deliberation release of genetically engineered plants for health and environmental reasons will feel vindicated. They are adamant that sufficient research has not been carried out on the potential health risks involved in eating genetically engineered food. They are also quite critical of governments and regulator/ agencies for not insisting on rigorous independent testing of every genetically engineered product. Until the health status of GE food is clear the precautionary principle cautions against commercial planting and consumption by humans.
These current findings vindicate the research and integrity of Dr. Arpad Pusztai. In my book Patenting Life? Stop! I described what happened to Dr. Pusztai in 1997. He was born in Hungary and escaped to Britain after the failed revolution in 1956. He received his doctorate in biochemistry and began working at the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen, Scotland. He spent 37 years working there and was recognised as a world expert on lectin research. In the intervening years he published many books and articles. In 1996 Dr. Pusztai was funded by the Scottish Office to design feeding trials for CE crops. He fed GE potatoes to rats. Within 10 days he found major adverse effects of the GE potatoes on the rats. There were changes in their kidneys, thymus, spleen and guts. In the light of these findings Dr. Pusztai called for more targeted research to see whether it was the GE factor that was causing the problem.
With permission from the Rowett Institute he appeared on a popular BBC Television show The World in Action. He explained that his research had highlighted the need for a case-by-case testing of all GE food. The interview went so well that the Director of the Institute, Professor Philip James, phoned Dr. Pusztai's wife, herself a scientist, to congratulate her on the way her husband had explained complex scientific data in language that could be understood by lay people.
What followed was bizarre and frightening for those who value independent science, free speech and public health. Dr. Pusztai was suspended from his job, his phone calls were redirected to the director's office and his emails were intercepted. Professor James threatened Pusztai with legal sanctions if he spoke
about his work to anyone outside the institute. When the Rowett Institute finally got around to auditing Dr. Pusztai's work none of the nutritionists at the Institute were appointed to the audit committee. Most amazing of all Dr. Pusztai was not allowed to explain his work to the committee and challenge his detractors.
Dr. Pusztai believes that he was sacked at the behest of the biotech industry. In the interview with Geoffrey Lean in The Independent on Sunday (May 22nd 2005, page 6 and 7) Dr. Pusztai maintains that; his trouble had started with a phone call to his employers, the Rowett Research Institute, from (10) Downing Street (This is the residence of the British Prime Minister). The journalist reminds the
readers that, Prime Minister Blair had put his full weight behind modified food, letting it be known that he would happily eat them himself. In a more sinister move, Jack Cunningham, then in charge of the Government's GM strategy, announced that Dr. Pusztai had been “comprehensively discredited”. His offiice drew up plans - revealed inThe Independent on Sunday - to enlist “eminent scientists” to attack him (Dr. Pusztai) and “trail the Govemment's key message”.Worse, the Government refused to undertake the normal scientific process of repeating Dr. Pusztai's experiment in order either to confirm or disprove his findings. Top officials at the then Ministry of Agriculture told me (Lean) that it would be “wrong” “immoral” and “a waste of money” to do so - an extraordinary attitude given the potential threat to public health, should he be right.
As the controversy raged about the sacking of Dr. Pusztai, Christopher Leake of The Mail (February, 14, 1999) reported that the Rowett Institute had received a £140,000 grant from Monsanto[1].
One would expect that Prime Minister Blair and the various agencies of the British Government would be grateful to Dr. Pusztai for highlighting problems that could have enormous negative impact on the health of British citizens. Instead, it would appear that the government put the commercial interest of transnational corporations ahead of the common good of their citizens. They did not schedule new trials to test Dr. Pusztai's results. Even today, with this new information on the potential risks from GE corn, they have not insisted that Monsanto publish the full dossier containing their recent research. Monsanto, or any other company, should not be allowed to cite commercial secrecy legislation in order to hide data that may be vitally important to the well-being of the public. Citizens in every country in the world need to be vigilant and challenge their government's record on genetically engineered food.
Is it any wonder that many people feel that the dangers posed by the tidal wave of biotechnological products are real and that there should we a worldwide moratorium on the deliberate release of genetically engineered organisms until the current technology is safer and independent research and agencies are available to verify this. At the moment they are not too sure that the research agencies and politicians who should be acting in the interests of the common good are not wedded to the vested interests of the biotech industry.
In November 2005 scientists at the government sponsored research centre Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) in Australia abandoned a 10 year long research into genetically engineered peas after tests showed that the modified peas caused inflammation in the lung tissue of mice. [2]If as is happening more and more the research was conducted in Third World countries which have limited research facilities this pea genetically modified to resist insects would have gone ahead. This is the real worry for those who are critical of GE technology.
GMO soy affects posterity
On October 10, 2005 during a seminar on genetic modification organized by the National Association for Genetic Security (NAGS) Irina Ermakova, who has a doctorate in biology, made public the results of research which she had been conducting at the Institute of Higher Nervous Activity and Neurophysiology of the RussianAcademy of Sciences (RAS). This is the first research that determined some clear relationship between eating genetically modified soya and the posterity of living creatures.
During the experiment Ermakova added GM soya flour to the food of female rates two weeks before conception, during conception and during nurturing. In the control group were the female rats who received no additions to their food. The experiment was formed by 3 groups of rats with 3 female rats in each group. The first group was the control group; the second group was the one where the rats received an addition of GM soy, and the third group received non-GM soy. The scientists counted the number of females who gave birth, the number of rats born and the number of rats that died. The researchers found that there was an. abnormally high level of deaths among rats that were born to females who had received GM soy in their food – 55% as against 9% in the control group. In addition 36% of rats born to such mothers weighed less than 20 grams. In other words they were in an extremely poor condition.
Because the morphology and biochemical structures of rats are similar to humans this makes the results very disturbing according to Dr. Ermakova. It also places an onus on public authorities to engage in full scale tests of GM-products before they are made available to human beings or animals that humans will eat[3].
Some of the other risks to human health and the environment include the potential to cause more allergies; an increase in antibiotic resistance.
Allergies
It is well-known that allergies in humans are caused by particular proteins. Genetic engineering involves adding new proteins to altered products. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the United States warned that new proteins in food might cause allergic reactions in some people. People with food sensitivities and intolerances could be at risk from genetically engineered food. Because of the lack of labeling these people could be under risk without even knowing it. It is possible, for example, to transfer a gene of one of the many allergenic proteins found in milk into vegetables, like carrots. People who ought to avoid milk might not be aware that the transgenic carrots they are buying contains milk proteins.
It is important to emphasize that this problem is unique to genetic engineering. Genetic engineering routinely moves proteins into the food supply from organisms that have never been consumed as food by humans or our close cousins on the tree of life.
Research which took place a number of years ago should alert the public to the possibility of an increase in allergenicity as a result of genetic engineering. A study by scientists at the University of Nebraska found that soybeans genetically engineered to Brazil-nut proteins caused reaction in individuals allergic to Brazil nuts. Blood serum from people known to be allergic to Brazin nuts was tested for the appropriate antibody response to the gene transferred to the soybean. When 7 out of 9 volunteers responded to the genetically engineered soybeans, the researchers concluded that the allergenicity had been transferred with the transferred gene. Someone who was allergic to peanuts and who ate a food that contained peanut protein could suffer from a fatal allergic reaction[4].
It is important to remember that scientists have a limited ability to predict whether a particular protein will be a food allergen if consumed by humans. The only sure way to determine whether a protein will be an allergen is through experience. Therefore importing proteins, particularly from non-food sources, is always a gamble from the point of view of allergenicity.
Furthermore, it has been generally recognized that there has been a significant rise in allergies during the past few decades. With over 8% of children showing, allergic reactions to many commonly eaten foods, it seems foolish in the extreme to do anything that might increase allergenicity.
Antibiotic Resistance
Genetic engineering often uses genes for antibiotic resistance as 'selectable' markers. These are used to determine which cells have taken up the foreign genes. Although they have no further use, the genes continue to be expressed in the plant tissue. Most genetically engineered food plants carry fully functioning antibiotic resistant genes. The most common used genes are the npt 11gene that confers resistance to kamamycin, neomycin and geneticin and the bla gene that confers resistance to ampicillin.
The presence of antibiotic genes could have two harmful effects. First, eating these foods could reduce the effectiveness of antibiotics that are taken with such a meal. Antibiotic resistant genes produce enzymes that can degrade antibiotics. It a tomato which an antibiotic resistant gene is eaten at the same time as an
antibiotic, it could destroy the antibiotic in the stomach. Second, the resistant genes could be transferred to human or animal pathogens, making them impervious to antibiotics. It transfer were to occur, it could aggravate that already serious health problem of antibiotic-resistant diseases organisms or Super Bugs.
It has been claimed that unmediated transfer of genetic material from plants to bacteria is highly unlikely. But even a slight risk of this happening ought to require careful scrutiny in the light of the seriousness of antibiotic, resistance in the population at large. Antibiotic resistant marker genes from GE plants have been found to transfer horizontally to soil bacterial and fungi in the laboratory. Field tests revealed that GE sugar beet DNA persisted in the soil for up to two years after the GE crop was planted[5].
In July 2002 research by British scientists at the University of Newcastle commissioned by the UK's Food Standards Agency (FSA) found that genes from antibiotic-resistant genes had found their way into the human gut. The scientists took seven volunteers who had their lower intestine removed and werer now using colostomy bags. The volunteers were given a burger with GE soya and a milkshake. Researchers compared their stools with twelve people with normal stomachs. The researchers found to their surprise that a relatively large proportion of genetically engineered DNA survived the passage through the small bowel. The researchers showed that no GE material survived the passage through the entire human digestive track. Nevertheless, the fact that antibiotic resistant marker genes were identified for the first time in the human gut, something the proponents of GE food said could not happen, has given rise to a genuine fear that this could compromise antibiotic resistance in the population at large. The fact that gut bacteria had taken up transgenetic DNA is a cause for concern[6].
In a lecture to scientists in New Delhi on November 7, 2005 Dr. Arpad Pusztai summed up the position on the potential dangers to human health from GE crops. He claimed that so far only a few animal studies had been completed. He alleged that the industry's and regulator's preferred “safety assessment” are based onpoorly defined and not legally binding concept of “substantial equivalence”. In such a situation it is difficult to conclude that GM foods are safe[7].
The well known Canadian scientist and broadcaster, David Suzuki takes the same approach. In April 2005 he told journalists that, anyone that says “Oh, we know that this is perfectly safe,” I say is either unbelievably stupid or deliberately lying. The reality is we don't know. The experiments simply haven't been done and we are now becoming the guinea pigs[8].
GE Plants Pose a Danger to the Environment
Genes form a holistic system, with one gene affect multiple traits and multiple genes affecting on trait. Consequently, scientists cannot always predict how a single gene will be expressed in a new system. For example, splicing a gene for human growth hormones into mice produces a very large mice. Splicing the same gene into pigs produces skinny, cross-eyed and arthritic animals.
It is completely plausible that a new combination of traits produced as a result of genetic engineering might enable crops to thrive in an environment in which they would then be considered a weed. For example, if a rice plant engineered to be salt-tolerant, escapes into a marine estuary, it could cause enormous damage. The possibility of this happening increases as more and more genetically engineered organisms are released into the environment.
Biotech scientists and regulators often dismiss the possibility of genetically engineered crops becoming super weeds; they argue that most staple crops have been so weakened by the domestication process that the addition of an engineered trait will not enhance their competitiveness. While this might be true of crops like maize, other crops like alfafa, barley, potatoes, wheat, sorghum, broccoli, cabbage do retain their weedy traits.
Gene flow does take place
Biotech scientists also argued that “gene flow” which involves the transfer of genes from transgenic plants to a weedy relative, would seldom take place. Opponents, of genetic engineering have always argued that if a herbicide resistant gene jumped to a genetically engineered plant to a wild weedy relative, that plant might become resistant to the particular herbicide. This form of genetic pollution could easily become a major nuisance to farmers worldwide.
In July 2005 the British Government published on an obscure website details of how genes from a genetically engineered oilseed rape (Brassica napus) had transferred to wild relatives in farm trials. The study was conducted by the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, a government research centre at Winfrith in Dorset. The researcher found a GE version of the common weed charlock (Sinapis Arvensis) in a field where GE oilseed rape had been grown for the past two years. They also found that resistance was transferred to field mustard at a farm in Shropshire. The transfer to field mustard was always on the cards as they are close relatives but the transfer to charlock came as a surprise as it is only distantly related to oilseed rape. Charlock is also a very common plant so the fact that pesticide-resistant gene was passed to charlock is a cause for real concern. The fear now is that if GE oilseed rape is grown commercially pollen from contaminated plants could spread throughout the country leading to the growth of plants which are immune to certain herbicides. The danger is very real. In 2003 research conducted for the British government found that oilseed rape pollen could travel over 16 miles; this is 6 times what was previously believed. Furthermore, charlock seeds can remain in the ground for 20 to 30 years before they germinate.