The Dark Side Of Genetic Engineering    (C) 2005  Lisa Mumm      

            When genetically engineered plants are mentioned some envision a utopia where vitamin-enriched cassava and rice have ended world hunger and cancer is a thing of the past due to tomatoes and broccoli engineered to contain cancer-fighting chemicals.   But behind all the amazing potential held by the breakthrough technology of genetic modification what are the hazards and risks involved?  Unlike many biotechnology proponents tell us, genetic modification is different from traditional plant crossbreeding as it crosses the species barrier.  The environmental effects of genetic engineering may be hard to predict as one transferred gene may produce more than one trait, resulting in unexpected outcomes.  As well as the negative effect transgenic plants have on some insects, insects may also develop a resistance to certain plants engineered to contain insecticide.  Another possible threat to our ecosystem is the potential of genetically engineered crops becoming invasive and overtaking the native habitat or even passing their genes on to wild relatives who will then have the potential to become invasive.  Although biotech companies claim that their crops will reduce the dependence on herbicide, the opposite has been the case.  This increased use of herbicide will not only hurt the ecosystem as a whole, but will also have a negative impact on soil ecosystems.  One serious threat not usually considered the biotech industry leaders is that monocultures will inevitably be more prominent in genetically modified plants, which could result in widespread crop failures.   While many argue that genetic engineering is the solution to world hunger, invasive genetically modified plants could create monocultures in developing countries and result in severe famine.  One way to ensure that these threats to our environment never become a reality is to ensure this new technology is adequately tested, but that is currently not being done.  Genetically engineered crops have the potential to harm our earth’s ecosystem. 

            Although biotech companies tell us that genetic engineering is no different than traditional plant breeding, that is not at all the case.  Proponents of biotechnology argue that the risks of genetic engineering are minimal since they believe that genetic modification is simply the next step in the age-old process of plant crossbreeding.  In an advertisement Monsanto (the world’s largest biotech/ herbicide company) states: “So you see there isn’t really much difference between food made by Mother Nature and those made by man.  What’s artificial is the line drawn between them.”[1]   These claims are simply not true.  Traditional plant breeding is very similar to the cross-pollination that occurs in nature in the fact that it is limited by the species barriers that took millions of years to evolve.  Genetic engineers, on the other hand, have the ability to take a gene with a desired trait from virtually any living organism and insert that gene into any other living organism.[2]   The crucial difference between traditional plant breeding and genetic engineering is that the introduced genes were not previously present in the specie’s gene pool.  George Wald, Nobel Laureate in Medicine and former Higgins Professor of Biology at Harvard University contends that until this point “living organisms have evolved very slowly, and new forms have had plenty of time to settle in.  Now whole proteins will be transported overnight into wholly new associations, with consequences no one can foretell, either for the host organism, or their neighbors.”[3]   Genetically modified organisms are very different from traditional hybrids; therefore we must take extra precautions when releasing them into our fragile ecosystem. 

            Unlike previously believed, scientists now know that transferring one gene may in fact transfer more than one trait. When tobacco was modified so that it would produce a new acid, the plant unexpectedly created a toxic compound not normally found in tobacco plants.[4]   This sent a ripple of fear through the biotech community.  The central dogma theory, which the biotechnology industry had relied on, was no longer plausible. While the central dogma theory was the belief that one gene accounted for only one protein or trait, in 2001 the three billion dollar Human Genome Project was completed and conclusively reported that a single gene was in most cases responsible for more than one trait.  It is this that makes the outcome of genetic engineering highly unpredictable.  Dr. Ricarda Steinbrecher of the Women’s Environmental Network reported that genes inserted into petunia flowers to change the color of the petals unexpectedly decreased rate of growth of the roots and leaves as well as the fertility rate.  Also, an attempt to increase the growth rate in salmon, made them grow much too quickly and also turn green.[5]   This unpredictability coupled with the industry’s refusal to acknowledge it increases the possibility of undesirable outcomes on the environment. 

            One of the most direct effects genetically modified crops have proven to have on our ecosystem is their toxic effect to many insects.  Currently, about twenty five percent of the corn grown in the United States is modified to contain a naturally occurring insecticide, Bacillus Thuringiensis (Bt).[6]   This has raised the question of what effects an insecticide modified to be in every cell of the corn might have on other organisms. Two Cornell University biologists, Linda Raynor and John Losey, led a research program to study the effect that corn modified to contain Bt might have on monarch caterpillars. The 1999 report found that after monarch butterfly caterpillars consumed milkweed “the three-day old monarch caterpillars crawled more slowly than usual, reflecting what was happening inside their bodies.  Soon, their brilliant orange markings started to fade.  Toward the end of the four-day experiment, they fastened themselves in a death grip to the plant that constitutes their sole sustenance in life and their principal food when they become butterflies.  Then they turned black and began to rot.”[7]   The study also found that while forty four percent of the caterpillars who ate milkweed dusted with genetically engineered corn pollen died, every caterpillar who consumed milkweed dusted with conventional corn pollen survived.[8]  One of the major concerns with this study is that forty percent of all milkweed grows in corn and soybean fields.  Also, seventy percent of monarch butterflies lay their eggs in fields because the herbicide programs used in the fields stunts the growth of milkweed making them better suited for the butterflies to lay their eggs.[9]  In 2000, another study was conducted by Iowa State University.  It found that three days of exposure to the transgenic corn pollen proved fatal to over one half of the monarch caterpillars.  Yet monarch caterpillars are not the only beneficial insects harmed by genetically modified corn.  In Europe, researchers had similar results with tests done on ladybugs and green lacewings.  In 1997, a study reported in New Scientist found that honeybees may be harmed after consuming proteins found in transgenic canola flowers.[10]  The study discovered that the bees found it harder to distinguish between the different scents of flowers.  These findings do not prove that all genetically modified crops will have negative impacts on beneficial insects but they do prove that measures must be taken to prevent this negative environmental impact.

            Another concern with genetically modified organisms is the creation of insect resistance to plants modified to contain insecticide, such as Bt. Bt corn itself is actually registered as an insecticide with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).[11]    Because Bt is present in millions of acres of crops, dramatically increasing insect’s exposure to it, even the biotech industry’s own scientists agree that Bt resistant strains could evolve in as little as three to five years.[12]  One way that this is being prevented is through regulations forcing farmers to grow plots of conventional crops near the transgenic plants in the hope that insects who have developed a resistance to Bt would mate will mate with insects from the nearby plot and produce non-resistant offspring.  Many scientists believe that this is just delaying the inevitable.  In 2001, a survey was conducted by major biotech companies and it was found that over ten percent of United States farmers were not complying with the regulations.[13]   These plots become even more difficult to enforce in developing countries where farmers do not have the extra land or resources to commit to this sort of procedure.  One reason an insect resistance of Bt will have a negative impact on our ecosystem is that it will deprive organic farmers (who are committed to using sustainable methods of farming) of one of their most powerful environmentally friendly methods of controlling pests.  The creation of insects resistant to genetically engineered plants is very probable. 

            Because genetically modified plants are engineered for a higher rate of survival against threats such as pests and herbicide, they have the potential to become invasive.  According to Stewart Wells, the president of the National Farmer’s Union, that after three or four years Canadian farmers began to realize the negative effects of Roundup Ready canola (engineered for herbicide resistance) such as the spread of volunteer plants. [14]   Crops genetically modified for herbicide resistance have the potential of becoming weeds to other crops when they are ploughed under after harvest.  If a crop rotation takes place, the transgenic plants could remain in the soil and regrow the next year as a weed to the new crop.  The regrowth would be hard to kill of because of the plant’s herbicide resistance.   A project to obtain sulfonylurea resistance in canola was recently abandoned when it was discovered that the transgenic canola would become an invasive weed in wheat.  This would have serious consequences as the transgenic canola would be resistant to sulfonylurea, which is the most important herbicide used in wheat crops.[15]  Another reason transgenic plants have the potential to become invasive stems from a fear that has plagued traditional plant breeders for centuries.  If an plant is relocated to a new environment, therefore becoming an exotic introduction to the region, it may have much higher levels of population growth than in it’s native area.  This could be due to a decreased number of wild animals using it as a food source or a decreased number in plant competition.  Since genetic engineering does cross the species barrier, all transgenic plants should be regarded as exotic introductions when introduced into the environment.  If genetically modified plants became invasive they could harm local habitat and pose a very serious threat to our environment.

                        One of the greatest effects on our ecosystem is the possibility of genetically engineered crops transferring their altered gene to a related wild species.  It is possible for genes to be transferred from a crop to a weed when the pollen is carried by wind or bees.  Bees can carry pollen two thirds of a mile, according to plant geneticist Daniel Z. Skinner.[16]  Some gene transfers that have already occurred include radish transferring its genes to weedy relatives up to one kilometer away from the crop.  Also, the transgenes from genetically modified canola were found to last for several generations in hybrids of canola and wild radish.[17]   The major concern with this was that the hybrids were now herbicide resistant; therefore these problematic weeds were difficult to kill off.   Another example of invasive weeds being created was when, in 2003, mare’s tail became herbicide resistant. It spread to twenty-one states in the United States and resulted in an increased spraying of 2,4-D.  This chemical is similar to Agent Orange and is proven to cause birth defects as well as being toxic to wildfowl and fish.[18]   With the introduction of Roundup Ready crops the number of herbicide resistant weeds developed in six years was twice of those that developed in the previous twenty-five years.[19]  The pollination of wild species by genetically engineered plants is a very serious threat to our ecosystem because the new weeds have the potential of becoming invasive.

                        Just as herbicide use increased during the green revolution, genetically engineered crops also increase farmer’s dependence on herbicides.  The green revolution that occurred from 1950 until the mid 1980’s at first appearances seemed like a godsend.  The use of Mendel’s laws in plant breeding increased crop yield dramatically.  But by 1984 the benefits of the green revolution were not as they had earlier appeared to be.  While the emphasis had been on increasing crop yield, it was now realized that more fertilizers, more chemicals and more irrigation were needed to sustain the increased yields thus in some cases making the costs outweigh the benefit.  It was around this time that it was realized the extent to which the intensive use of agrochemical had a hazardous effect on the environment.   With genetically engineered crops the use of herbicides is greatly increased from that of the green revolution and with this increase the degradation of the environment will undoubtedly occur.  Over seventy percent of the genetic modification that has been performed on plants has been to develop herbicide resistance.[20]   A plant modified for herbicide resistance means that a farmer can spray his crops with herbicide, killing all green growth in his fields except for the herbicide resistant crop.  The creation of herbicide resistant crops is extremely profitable for companies such as Monsanto because it creates the demand for herbicides.  In the year 2000 the sale of genetically engineered seeds coupled with the increase in herbicide sales was estimated to be worth six billion U.S. dollars.[21]   Monsanto claims that the use of herbicide resistant crops will decrease the use of herbicide. Why then, after Roundup Ready soybeans were imported to Australia and New Zealand, did Monsanto petition both of the governments to increase the allowed levels of herbicides on soybeans?[22]   Before the introduction of genetically engineered organisms, over spraying of herbicide resulted in crop damage.  Now because of an ability to spray during a longer period of time during the growth season and due to the fact that there will be no negative effect on the crops, an overuse of herbicide has occurred.  Since Roundup Ready crops were introduced by Monsanto to the United States, there has been a fivefold increase in the use of glyphosate, a non-selective herbicide.[23]   This is a serious concern because not only is it lethal to a wide range of herbaceous plants but the United States Fish and Wildlife service found seventy four endangered plant species threatened by excessive glyphosate use.[24]   Also, it was recently found that soil particles easily release glyphosate, making it possible for it to be released into water.  Depending on factors such as the age of the fish and the hardness and temperature of the water, glyphosate can prove toxic to fish.  In certain cases, concentrations as low as ten parts per million can prove lethal to aquatic life.[25]   Another threat of the increase in herbicide use is that as more weed species die off, food sources for birds, mammals and insects are altered or disappear completely.  When herbicide spray drifts to neighboring native vegetation and damage it.  When native vegetation is damaged, animals and insects that relied on it for food and shelter are negatively impacted.    A further environmental concern with the increased use of herbicides is that herbicides are proven to cause not only birth defects but also cancer in laboratory animals.[26]   Organisms modified for herbicide resistance not only increase the input cost for farmers but also have a detrimental effect on the environment.  The only benefits reaped from herbicide resistant crops are by the multinational companies who produce them. 

            Genetically modified crops have been proven to have a negative effect on soil ecosystems.  They indirectly have an impact when they cause the increased use of herbicide.  Herbicide enters the soil and deprives it of the benefits of nutrient stabilization.[27]   Glyphosate possibly inhibits the growth of mycorhizal fungi in the soil.  This fungi is essential in helping plant roots absorb minerals from the earth.[28]   As well as an increase in herbicide use, when corn is engineered to contain Bt this negatively impacts soil ecosystems.  A study at New York University found that Bt toxins modified into corn and rice plants remain in the soil for up to eight months and depress microbial activity.[29]    Sustainable farmers use Bt in minimal amounts that dissipate after a day or two while corn engineered to contain it has Bt in every single cell and the insecticide is effective every single day.  Even the root hairs of the plants are constantly discharging tiny amounts of Bt into the soil.[30]   The fertility and nutrient content of soil has a tremendous impact on plant growth.  A reduction or disappearance in plant growth can in turn have a detrimental effect on the food sources of insects and animals.  The effect transgenic organisms have on soil is definitely a factor that should be considered when weighing the benefits of this new technology with it’s hazards. 

            One threat that perhaps surpasses all other is the creation of monocultures.  As the green revolution evolved, monocultures began to replace genetically diverse food crops that had adapted to their local environment.  An example of this is that today ninety-seven percent of all species of vegetables grown in the United States at the beginning of the twentieth century are now extinct.[31]  The reason that monocultures are a threat to our environment and farming practices is because if disease or pest outbreaks occur, due to genetic similarity virtually all crops could be wiped out.  A historical example of this is the great potato famine that occurred in Ireland in the 1840’s, killing over one million people.  Because there was only one variety of potatoes being grown in Ireland at the time, the potato blight Plytophthora was able to wipe out the entire crop.  When the same blight later hit Peru, it had much lesser consequences because of the large variety of potato species being grown there.[32]   Monocultures of genetically engineered plants are even more genetically similar than those of conventional crops, increasing the risk even further.[33]   If monocultures of genetically modified plants become invasive in developing countries the effects could be devastating. 

            Despite what biotech proponents say, the introduction of genetically modified crops into developing countries could have devastating consequences.  When President Bush proposed an Initiative to End Hunger in Africa on May 23, 2003, he proposed doing so by using transgenic foods.  He blamed Europe’s “unfounded, unscientific fears” of genetically engineered foods for slowing efforts to end world hunger.[34]   The argument that one of the main benefits of genetically engineered foods is that it will help to end world hunger is unfounded.  Besides the fact that malnutrition is a problem of distributing the world’s abundance of food, in one study it was found that monocultures of genetically engineered crops actually required sixty times the amount of inputs of cash and labor to produce the same yield as traditional crops.[35]   But the main concern on our ecosystem is the threat of monocultures of genetically engineered crops becoming invasive into developing countries.  This could have a terrible effect on their main food sources if disease or pest outbreaks occurred.  Today the use of transgenic crops in poor and developing countries is widespread.  It is estimated that of the eight point two five million farmers who grew genetically engineered crops in 2004, ninety percent were in from developing nations.[36]   Since Europe imposed strict standards on the imports of genetically modified foods, a good part of the excess production has been sent as food aid to developing nations.  Despite the efforts of the United Nations at protecting the genetically diverse south from the genetically engineered plants of the north their Cartegena Protocol on Biosafety has proven largely unsuccessful, due to the fact that most developing countries dot not have the technical and financial means to regulate genetically modified organisms. [37]   The threat of monocultures contaminating land races (varieties of plants developed for specific conditions such as altitude and drought) recently became a reality in Mexico.  Since Mexico is the birthplace of corn and virtually a storehouse for it’s genetic diversity, the government had banned planting of engineered corn.  Unfortunately, researchers have recently reported that local varieties had been contaminated by modified genes.[38]   The genetic contamination in Mexico not only threatens biodiversity but if monocultures wipe out local varieties, the threat of massive crop failures resulting in a destruction of an essential food source for millions of people could become a reality. 

            We could assure that the genetically modified plants being released into the environment pose no threat by ensuring that an appropriate ecological consequence assessment is performed.  The first problem with the testing done today is that   the bodies performing the testing have had little experience with the impact of genetically engineered organisms on the environment.  The greatest weakness of the current methods of ecological assessment is that the sample size is usually too small to generate comprehensive results, since meaningful trials are very expensive and take a long time to complete.[39]   Aside from the difficulty of producing a comprehensive study, the testing regulations are currently very insignificant.  In the United States, the Federal Department of Agriculture requires testing to be done only by the companies who manufacture them.[40]   This means that the corporations who benefit financially from the release of genetically modified organisms are in charge of providing ecological risk assessment.  This does not provide for unbiased test results.  Also it has been proven that Monsanto has in fact played a part in hindering the environmental testing done by outside agencies.  In 2002 a fifty thousand dollar bribe was offered to a senior official in Indonesia’s environment ministry by a company manager of Monsanto.  The bribe’s purpose was to stop an environmental impact study that was required before Monsanto’s genetically engineered crops could be grown.[41]   How can we ensure that this new technology does not harm the environment when the testing done is inadequate and the bodies performing the testing are the same as those selling the products?  More stringent testing regulations need to be put into place before any more genetically engineered plants are released into the ecosystem. 

            There are many ways in which genetically modified crops may pose a serious threat to the environment.  Because it is an altogether entirely different process from traditional plant breeding and because one gene may carry more than one trait, the outcomes of genetic modification are difficult to predict.  Not only have genetically engineered plants been proven to pose a threat to some beneficial insects, the insects that the plants were engineered to resist may actually develop a resistance to the plant themselves. While transgenic crops have been found to become invasive, there is also the possibility that they could transfer their genes to wild relatives.  Both of these possibilities could be detrimental to native habitat.  With the introduction of genetically engineered crops the creation of monocultures becomes more likely.  This would mean that rather than ending world hunger, genetically modified crops that became invasive could instead create monocultures that could result in massive crop failure and the end of land races.  The only way to prevent disastrous outcomes is to ensure comprehensive, unbiased testing yet currently the companies selling these products are also in charge of ensuring their safety.  According to Dr. David Suzuki biotechnology is “a revolutionary technology that is being rushed into commercialization to make money for corporations.  The promoters of the industry, including scientists, are not being honest about the limitations and the risks.”[42]