Fact Pack

Genetic engineering is a process by which new genes are inserted into the genome of an organism. There are several ways to do this, but they all involve taking a piece of DNA that codes for some desirable trait (e.g., cold tolerance, herbicide resistance, or production of a pesticide or a drug) and inserting it into the DNA of a plant, animal, or other organism. This technology is not particularly controversial, and has been used successfully in a number of species. What is controversial is the use of organisms that have been genetically engineered for human consumption, and the open-air cultivation of such crops.

Concerns about Genetically Engineered (GE) Organisms

GE organisms could be dangerous for a number of reasons:(1)(2)(3)

• Very few studies have been conducted to determine whether genetically engineered foods are harmful to human health.
• Genetic engineering may trigger allergies in humans.
• Genetic engineering may create new toxins that are harmful to human health.
• Genetic engineering may threaten wildlife populations, such as the Monarch butterfly and various bird populations.
• The use of GE crops has been shown to increase pesticide pollution.
• Genetic engineering raises the fears of genetic contamination in the environment.
• Genetically engineered genes have been shown to jump species barriers.
• The planting of genetically engineered crops may lead to increased herbicide resistance (so-called “superweeds”) and increased pesticide resistance.
• Genetic engineering may reduce biodiversity and damage soil.

The concerns about genetically engineered organisms fall into two categories. First, what happens when we plant, raise, or release them outside the laboratory? Second, what happens when, intentionally or not, they are consumed by humans?

Gene Flow

One of the most serious environmental concerns is inherent to the technology - the issue of gene flow. Genes that have been engineered into one organism can spread to other organisms of the same species and closely related species through naturally occurring interbreeding, and may even spread to completely unrelated species via bacteria or viruses.(1) This biological fact has many worrisome implications. If GE crops interbreed with traditional crops, farmers who did not intend to grow GE crops may find them in their fields, a situation that could have severe economic consequences. “Volunteer” GE crops may become weedy, especially if they are engineered for herbicide resistance.(2) GE fish may escape and interbreed with native fish, causing the loss of genetic diversity in wild populations. Gene flow between GE crops and their wild relatives (e.g., corn and teosinte) may also cause the loss of important genetic diversity. This type of gene flow may also create “superweeds”, if the genes that spread help the wild species survive (e.g., herbicide resistance genes).(3) Finally, genes introduced into crops may spread to unrelated species, having unknown and unintended consequences.(4)

Other Environmental Consequences

The widespread use of GE organisms may have other environmental consequences, depending on the organism, the genes introduced, and the type of use.

The impact of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) crops on non-target organisms. Bt crops are engineered to produce a pesticide in their tissues. This pesticide can affect all insects, not just pests, and may kill insects that are desirable. The most famous example of this is the impact of pollen from Bt corn on Monarch butterflies.(1)(2)

The spread of pesticide and herbicide resistance. Since the Bt pesiticide is ubiquitous in fields were Bt crops are grown, pest insects may become resistant, rendering the pesticide useless. Similarly, if herbicide-resistance crops are planted, they may promote herbicide resistance in weeds, either via gene flow or the increased use of herbicides and the natural evolution of resistance.

Soil and water pollution. Crops that are engineered to be immune to herbicides promote increased use of those herbicides, which can contaminate soil and water and have unintended impacts on human health and other non-target organisms.

Damage to biodiversity. GE crops can threaten biodiversity by spreading genes to wild relatives, promoting increased use of herbicides, producing pesticides that harm non-target organisms, producing drugs that remain in crop residues and harm wildlife, or in other ways that we have not anticipated or studied yet.

Impact on Human Health

Many people are most concerned about the impact of GE crops on human health. Experience has shown us that it’s hard to keep GE and non-GE foods separate (e.g., the Starlink corn fiasco(5)), and many products already on the shelves are made from GE crops. Of greatest concern, however, is the fact that the potential impact of GE foods on human health has simply not been studied.(1) Scientists have suggested, however, that the proteins produced by introduced genes may provoke allergic reactions. For example, soybeans engineered to include protein-rich genes from the Brazil nut also contained the allergenic properties of the Brazil nut.(3) There is evidence that Bt crops may provoke allergic reactions as well.(1) GE crops may also promote antibiotic resistance, depending on how they are engineered.(1)(3)

Myths about Genetic Engineering

Many claims made regarding GE organisms are false. Read these common myths that have been dispelled by the True Food Network and the Organic Consumers Association. Some of these myths include:

• Genetic engineering will reduce the amounts of herbicides and pesticides used. Actually, there’s evidence that the opposite is true. One study of more than 8,000 university-based field trials suggested that farmers who plant herbicide-resistant soy use two-to-five times more herbicide than non-GE farmers who use integrated weed-control methods.
• Genetic engineering is no different than traditional methods of breeding. Traditional breeding would never be able to get genes from a fish into a tomato or strawberry, genes from bacteria into corn and soybeans, or genes from humans into plants. Genetic engineering has done all of these things.
• Genetic engineering will alleviate world hunger. GE crops are not the answer to world hunger. They are designed specifically for high intensity agriculture and to meet the needs of food processors, not to make it easier for farmers in the developing world to plant and harvest. To give just one example, when biotech companies sell their seed, they force growers to sign a “technology use agreement,” which stipulates, among other things, that the farmer can not save the seeds produced from their GE harvest. Half the world’s farmers rely on saved seed to produce food that 1.4 billion people rely on for daily nutrition.

States Are Taking the Lead

States are on the forefront dealing with agricultural biotechnology.(6)

• In the 2001-2002 legislative session, 121 pieces of legislation were introduced in 31 states during the first year of the sessions.
• In the 2003 legislative session, 32 states introduced 130 pieces of legislation.
• In 2003, no legislation was introduced regarding the damage or destruction of GE crops, unlike the majority of legislation introduced during the 2001-2002 session. Rather the legislation focused on labeling, effects on the organic agricultural sector, and moratoriums.

Labeling

• Food and food products containing GE organisms should be labeled.
• Forty-six different genetically engineered foods are being sold without labeling or pre-market safety testing and are present in up to 70% of processed food products.(7)
• The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods feels products should be labeled for the following reasons:(8)
  • Labeling will foster consumer awareness of genetically engineered foods.
  • Genetically engineered foods are poorly tested, and pose environmental and human health risks.
  • Labeling will protect people who have allergies.
  • The public strongly supports the labeling of genetically engineered food – up to 93% of respondents in some surveys.

Manufacturers Should Be Held Liable

Farmers and biotechnology companies face many liability issues concerning genetically modified crops. A report, “GMO Liability Threats for Farmers,” details some of these issues. Manufacturers need to be responsible for contamination of organic crops of the food supply because of potential financial losses for farmers and dangers to customers.(9)

GE Foods Could Have Negative Economic Impacts

From 1996-2001, American farmers paid at least $659 million in price premiums to plant Bt corn, while boosting their harvest by only 276 million bushels – worth some $657 million in economic gain. The bottom line for farmers is a net loss of $92 million – about $1.33 per acre.(10)

U.S. export markets are feeling the brunt of consumer rejection abroad. According to the American Corn Growers Association, U.S. corn growers have lost $814 million in the last five years due to the rejection of GE food by foreign markets.(11)

Montana state legislators introduced a bill to prevent the introduction of GE wheat in the state until it could be guaranteed that the Pacific Rim markets, which comprise 93% of the state’s wheat export market, would not be lost.(12)

In Canada, the farmers alleged that “contamination from widely grown GE oilseed made it impossible to grow GE-free rape in Western Canada, and cost organic growers 14 million dollars (10 million U.S. dollars) in lost sales.”(13)

Current Regulatory Scheme for GE Organisms

The current regulatory scheme for genetically engineered (GE) organisms is not working. These examples show that, due to the lack of oversight by the Federal government, increased regulation is needed:

• University of Illinois scientists producing GE pigs sent some of the pigs’ offspring to market without the Food and Drug Administration’s permission.
• Prodigene, a small biotech company, contaminated soybeans intended for the food supply with an experimental corn that was engineered to produce pharmaceuticals.
• Pioneer and DowAgroSciences were fined by the Environmental Protection Agency for growing experimental corn in Hawaii in ways that could have pollinated nearby conventional crops.
• Starlink, a variety of GE corn not approved for human use, appeared in numerous food products in 2000.(2)

The Center for Food Safety has compiled a list of GE failures.

The current regulatory scheme is complex and outdated.(2)

• The current policy guideline regulating GE food products is outlined by the 1986 Coordinated Framework. This is outdated due to the recent advancements in agricultural biotechnology.
• Currently, three federal agencies are responsible for GE products: (1) the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); (2) the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA); and, (3) the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
• There are potentially 12 federal laws guiding the above mentioned federal agencies regarding genetic engineering. They are the following:
  1. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
  2. The Toxic Substances Control Act
  3. The Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
  4. The Plant Protection Act
  5. The Virus Serum Toxin Act
  6. The Animal Health Protection Act
  7. The Federal Meat Inspection Act
  8. The Poultry Products Inspection Act
  9. The Egg Products Inspection Act
  10. The Animal Damage Control Act
  11. The Animal Welfare Act
  12. The National Environmental Protection Act