Genetic Engineering.



Genetic engineering is dangerous technology. It uses infective genetic material derived from pathogens and cancer causing viruses for altering genomes. What it does in nature, scientists do not entirely know. They close their eyes and throw their bread upon the water. Also, the public is not given the slightest clue of the dangers nor the slightest choice about the consequences.

John B. Fagan, Ph.D.
Professor of Molecular Biology


When new genetic information is introduced into plants, bacteria, insects or other animals, it can easily be passed into related organisms, through processes such as cross pollination. This process has already created "super weeds".

There is also serious concern about the dangers of using genetically engineered viruses as delivery vehicles (vectors) in the generation of transgenic plants and animals. This could destabilize the genome, and also possibly create new viruses, and thus dangerous new diseases. (Refs: Green, A.E. et al (1994) SCIENCE 263:1423; Osbourn, J.K. et al (1990) VIROLOGY 179:921.)

Mae-Wan Ho

The most common vectors used in gene biotechnology are a mosaic recombination of natural genetic parasites from different sources, including viruses causing cancers and other diseases in animals and plants, with their pathogenic functions 'crippled', and tagged with one or more antibiotic resistance 'marker' genes, so that cells transformed with the vector can be selected.

Unlike natural parasitic genetic elements which have varying degrees of host specificity, vectors used in genetic engineering are designed to overcome species barriers, and can therefore infect a wide range of species.

Recent evidence also suggests that vectors carrying transgenes may spread horizontally via microorganisms, animals and human beings in an uncontrolled and uncontrollable manner. The teeming microbial populations in the terrestrial and aquatic environments serving as a horizontal gene transfer highway and reservoir, facilitating the multiplication, recombination of vectors and infection of all plant and animals species.
Source Link.
Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Application of Science and Technology (PSRAST)

 Irish Times June 2001

Government support for
GM foods out dated,

By Kevin O'Sullivan, Environmental and Food Science Correspondent

The Government's policy on GM foods is "out of date and out of tune" with the needs of the Irish agriculture and the best interests of the environment, according to organisations opposed to their development in the Republic.

In response to the recent independent panel report on GM foods, whose positive but cautious approach was endorsed by the Government, 16 non-governmental organisations said the outcome (part of a national consultation process) ran contrary to consumer trends. Gene technology as applied to food was also being endorsed when, they claimed, "there is no scientific consensus that GM foods are safe".

Genetic Concern spokeswoman Ms Sadhbh O'Neill said the report was not only "wholly out of tune with public opinion and the latest scientific evidence", but advocated a positive approach to biotechnology at a time when the market for GM produce was collapsing. "Government policy will be irrelevant as consumers are voting with their feet and their purses, and avoiding GM food."

Ms Iva Pocock, of Voice environmental group, said there were developments almost daily indicating that multinational biotech companies were being forced to change their approach. The leading European financial institution, Deutsche Bank, had warned them to steer away from GM foods if they wanted their share prices to stop falling.

"Supermarket groups, food processors and exporters are removing GM ingredients. The Government has a duty to protect Irish agricultural interests but the Minister for the Environment, Mr Dempsey, is basically telling farmers to grow GM crops for which there is no demand."

The contention that organic farming might be damaging to biodiversity was rejected by Ms Kathryn Marsh, of the Organic Trust. She said it displayed ignorance of the value, productivity and environmental benefits offered by organic agriculture.

Dr Ruth McGrath, a microbiologist who represented the NGOs at the first consultation debate prior to their withdrawal from the process, criticised the report's dismissal of environmental risks. "We raised issues of concern surrounding horizontal gene transfer; the potential of new viruses, antibiotic resistance, allergies and unknown effects of transgenic crops."

It will take some years to examine, test and quantify fully the benefits or otherwise of GM foods, the chief executive of the Consumers' Association of Ireland, Mr Dermott Jewell, has said. "In the meantime, consumers have to make their own decisions."

In a survey for its magazine, Consumer Choice, it found some ingredients were produced from a GM source but may not have to be labelled under current regulations. CAI food specialist Ms Celine Murrin also raised with food companies the possibility their ingredients or additives might be from a GM source. Most of them did not respond directly but issued a general policy statement indicating they do not use GM ingredients.

 

New scientist 30 June 2001, www.newscientist.com

Oxfam,

Oxfam endorses the Five-year Freeze campaign (as does Greenpeace), calling for an international moratorium on the growing of genetically engineered crops for any commercial purpose, imports of genetically engineered foods and farm crops.

This endorsement reflects Oxfam's belief that governments should adopt the precautionary principle by regulating GM technology development to prevent potential adverse impacts on farmers, consumers and the environment, and that current public policy is inadequate in this regard. 

Antonio Hill Oxfam, Oxford

 

GM bug, a danger to all life                               Jan:2001

Four scientists gave evidence for the Green Party at the hearing this week via video link from the United States.

All life on Earth could be destroyed by genetically modified bacteria, one scientist told the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification.

Soil ecologist Elaine Ingham spoke about a plant killing GM bacteria that her Oregon State University research team prevented from being released into the environment.

The alcohol-producing bacteria has been approved for field trials when her team discovered its lethal effects. She believes the widespread plant deaths caused by the bacteria would in turn affect all life on Earth.

The GM klebsiella planticola produced alcohol from post-harvest crop residue. The leftover organic sludge, containing the bacteria, would be returned to fields as fertilizer.

Dr. Ingham said she had independently tested the bacteria on plants, which the regulatory authority had failed to do, an after seven days, all wheat plants turned into slime.

This example showed the need for better risk assessment of ecological impact.

Outdoor field trails of GM crops should never be allowed under these circumstances.

 

The New Zealand Herald, February 05,2001

back to environment
Other links: "The release of genetically modified organisms to the environment": A consultation paper: Dept. of the Environment & Local Government

Comments of Dr. Bill Crowe, a Biology and Ecology Lecturer in the Department of Environmental Sciences at the Institute of Technology: Sligo and a committee member of the Environmental Sciences Association of Ireland.

http://hazelwood.itsligo.ie/statt/bcrowe/bill/styles/frames/gmos/gmos&env.htm