Potential risk

Opponents might have nothing against genes per se, instead they fear the effects of foreign genes not naturally found in the plant.161 _{They are not only sceptic about}

the alleged benefits, but also warn against a number of risks, which in their opinion, are posed by GM crops and food products. Generally opponents have two types of worries. The first relates to food safety and risk to human health; the second concerns risk to the environment. Such fears should not be underestimated; they might have the power to shake up the industry. We will dwell on these two issues in turn.

2.7.2.1 Concerns about food safety and risks to human health

The concerns about food safety and risks to human health focus on two main areas: allergenic and immune system reactions to new substances, and antibiotic marker genes.162 _{New GM crops may contain new proteins transferred together with the}

desired trait. A risk to humans arises if these products provoke an additional allergenic reaction. For example, a 1996 report in the New England Journal of Medicine seemed to confirm at least some of those fears. The study found that soybeans containing a gene from Brazil nut could trigger an allergic reaction in people who were sensitive to Brazil nuts.163 _{The work on these soybeans was}

discontinued, and none of the plants were ever released to the public.164 _{In spite of}

159 _{Ibid, p 88}

160 _{Patrice Laget and Mark Cantley, ‘European Responses to Biotechnology: Research, Regulation,}

and Dialogue’, (2001) Issues in S. and T., available at http://www.issues.org/17.4/laget.htm. Accessed 13 November 2008.

161 _{William J. Thieman & Michael A. Palladino, Introduction to Biotechnology, (n 35) p. 168.} 162 _{Simonetta Zarrilli, International Trade in GMOs and GM Products: National and Multilateral}

Legal Frameworks, (Policy Issues in International Trade and Commodities Study Series No.29,

UNCTD, UN – New York and Geneva, 2005) p. 1-2.

163 _{William J. Thieman & Michael A. Palladino, Introduction to Biotechnology, (n 35) p. 147.} 164 _{The FDA in the US ordered tests for allergenicity. This transgene was found to cause allergic}

reactions; see David P. Clark & Nanette J. Pazdernik, Applying the Genetic Revolution (n 40), p. 418.

116 this risk, scientists believe that the odds of an unknown allergen being found in GM foods sold to consumers are very small.165 _{As a matter of principle, the transfer of}

genes from commonly allergenic foods is discouraged unless it can be demonstrated that the protein product of the transferred gene is not allergenic.166

Another example is the StarLink corn, which was found to have a higher concentration of protein than expected after processing and cooking. The protein can cause an allergic reaction if consumed by the public. Companies pushed for approval. The EPA gave split approval for StarLink corn to be grown as long it was only used to feed livestock.167 _{The lack of labelling and segregation in the US}

allowed the StarLink corn to mix with all other corn from the region, which was then shipped together to processing centres.168 _{In 2000, an unapproved transgenic}

corn called StarLink was detected in taco shells found in American grocery stores. This led The EPA to revoke its approval, and withdraw the product from the market. The company offered to buy back all the remaining StarLink corn so that no more food would became contaminated. In addition, all StarLink seed was pulled from the market to prevent its future growth. StarLink is no longer grown anywhere in the world. 169 _{The lack of segregation can led to worse situations, where GM crops}

intended for industrial or pharmaceutical processes, becomes commercially widespread, the risks from unwanted material in the human food chain are intensified.170

Another concern regards antibiotic resistance marker genes. It is feared that these genes may be transferred to bacteria, which would then acquire the antibiotic resistance themselves, rendering many antibiotics useless. There is worry that overuse of antibiotics may render some human drugs ineffective, and/or make some

165 _{William J. Thieman & Michael A. Palladino, Introduction to Biotechnology, (n 35) p. 147.} 166 _{WHO, ’20 Questions on Genetically Modified (GM) Foods’ (n 7).}

167 _{David P. Clark & Nanette J. Pazdernik, Applying the Genetic Revolution (n 40), p. 417.} 168 _{Ibid, p. 417.}

169 _{Ibid, p. 417.}

117 strains of bacteria untreatable.171 _{Alternatives to antibiotic marker genes now exist,}

and many believe antibiotics should not be used in commercial GMOs.172

Similarly, gene transfer from GM foods to cells of the body, or to bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract, could cause concern if the transferred genetic material adversely affects human health. 173 _{This would be particularly relevant if antibiotic}

resistance genes used in creating GMOs were to be transferred. Arpad Pusztai first suggested this following a study on the effects of consumption of genetically modified potatoes on rats, in which subjects fed the altered potatoes suffered stunted internal organ growth and weakened immune systems.174 _{The research, however,}

has been criticized.175

2.7.2.2 Concerns about the environment

Environmental concerns mainly relate to the plants themselves, and the effect on the non-target species, such as insects in their environment.176 _{Many fear gene flow}

and cross pollination, where transgenes could transfer from GMO to conventional crop, related species in the wild, and/or to bacteria in soil or human guts. It is difficult to predict the effects on native plant ecology.177 _{At first, this concern was}

raised in relation to open-air crop trials, with possibility of cross pollination, and on-the-ground and in-the-soil contamination of non-GMO crops.178 _{It was then a}

problem for farmers growing conventional crops near GM farms. Cross pollination is a complex risk to assess as it varies from country to country. If a crop has native wild relatives the risk is higher than it would be in another country where there are few or no relative wild relatives.179 _{Cross pollination within species can be limited}

171 _{William J. Thieman & Michael A. Palladino, Introduction to Biotechnology, (n 35) p. 147. There}

is no evidence that this kind of transfer has actually taken place, but opponents warn that if it does, it is already too late.

172 _{Jules Pretty ’contested risks and benefits’ (n 59) p. 248-262.} 173 _{WHO, ’20 Questions on Genetically Modified (GM) Foods’ (n 7).}

174 _{‘Top Scientist Backs Calls for GM Safety Screen’ The Guardian (London, 9 March 1999), cited}

in ‘The GMO Dispute: Bush Administration Attack on European Food Safety Policy Latest Challenge to WTO’s Legitimacy’, Public Citizen (June 2003),

http://www.citizen.org/trade/wto/agriculture/. Accessed 29 October 2007.

175_{Jules Pretty ’contested risks and benefits’ (n 59) p.248-262.}

176 _{Nuffield Council on Bioethics, The Ethical and Social Issues (n 140) p. 103.} 177 _{WHO, ’20 Questions on Genetically Modified (GM) Foods’ (n 7).}

178 _{‘The GMO Dispute: Bush Administration Attack on European Food Safety Policy Latest}

Challenge to WTO’s Legitimacy’, Public Citizen (n 174).

118 by management practice, and appropriate further studies are needed to clarify the extent of this threat.180 _{Such a gene flow may lead to a chance of recombining}

viruses and bacteria to produce new pathogens leading to novel and non-desirable traits.181 _{The concern is whether different viruses subsequently infecting the plant}

might incorporate some of the original viral DNA, giving rise to a new hybrid virus.182

Herbicide tolerant crops raises concerns regarding new forms of resistance. The main fear is that GM plants may confer their genetically modified traits on weedy relatives that live nearby, leading to resistant weeds, sometimes referred to as ‘super weeds’.183 _{Just as genes for antibiotic resistance could theoretically spread from}

plants to bacteria, genes for pest or herbicide resistance could potentially spread to weeds. Many plants including squash, sunflower, and canola are close relatives to weeds. Cross breading occasionally occurs, allowing the genes from the plant to mix with the genes from the other plant. Herbicide tolerant crops themselves may also become problem weeds in the rotation. New secondary pest and weed problems can also arise. 184 _{Gene Watch cites an example from Canada, where GM oilseed}

rape pollinated other oilseed rape. The other oilseed rape developed resistance to a few herbicides, and farmers had to use alternative herbicides to control them.185

There are concerns on three fronts with regard to the introduction of Bt crops. First, there is the possibility of insects building up resistance against the Bt toxin.186 _The

fear is that some insects will survive the toxins, developing resistance and then mating with other resistant insects, likely producing offspring also resistant to the pesticide. The Bt toxin in the plants act as selection pressure on the variations

180 _{William J. Thieman & Michael A. Palladino, Introduction to Biotechnology, ((n 35) p. 147.} 181 _{Jules Pretty ’contested risks and benefits’ (n 59) p. 252.}

182 _{Nuffield Council on Bioethics, The Ethical and Social Issues (n 140) p 103.}

183 _{‘The GMO Dispute: The GMO Dispute: Bush Administration Attack on European Food Safety}

Policy Latest Challenge to WTO’s Legitimacy’, Public Citizen (n 174).

184 _{The EPA and the USDA have set out guidance for integrated resistance management (IRM) for}

Bt GM crops such as maize, cotton, and potato. See Jules Pretty ’contested risks and benefits’ (n 59) p. 252.

185 _{Gene Watch UK ‘GM Crops: Environmental Saviour or New Form of Pollution’ Gene Watch}

UK, December 2002 www.genewatch.org/uploads/.../Environment.doc accessed 2 February 2010.

186 _{The GMO Dispute: Bush Administration Attack on European Food Safety Policy Latest}

119 inherent within a pest population, driving them toward resistance. In a short period of time, much shorter than the evolutionary timeline, the entire population will be resistant, and the pesticide will no longer be effective.187 _{These crops would exert}

strong selection pressure on any resistant insects, potentially making that pest resistant and forcing farmers to go back to spraying.

Second, there is concern as regards the effect of GM plants on ‘non-target organisms’, that is, any plants or animals inadvertently exposed to it.188 _{An article}

in the journal ‘Nature’ suggested that Monarch butterflies were killed by eating pollen from corn carrying the Bt gene. This article alarmed the science community as well as environmental advocacy groups, and spurred public debate.189 _Much

controversy surrounded this study, and led to further studies examining the effect on butterflies and other non-target organisms. Some showed adverse effects of transgenic corn pollen on the Monarch butterfly. However, the studies were conducted in the laboratory where caterpillars had no choice but to eat milkweed contaminated with pollen, a much different setting from a corn field. Clark argues that more studies in the actual environment are necessary to allow reliable conclusions to be reached.190 _{The monarch butterfly became the symbol of the anti-}

GMO movement in the early 2001.191

Third, there is fear of changes to farm practices, which would lead to loss of biodiversity.192 _{Bt trait in the crops is very effective, more thoroughly killing pests}

than spraying, and resulting in less food for birds and other animals further up the food chain. This is also of concern to biodiversity because it reduces the number of different varieties available.193 _{Proponents argue that any potential environmental}

187 _{Rebecca Bratspies, ‘The Illusion of Care’ (n 38) p 304. Pesticide pray applications typically coat}

the plant’s leaves for a short time. Bt crops by contrast, constantly produce fairly high doses of Bt toxins in every cell of the plant. It is this property that raises concerns about pest resistance.

188 _{Nuffield Council on Bioethics, The Ethical and Social Issues (n 140) p 102; Jules}

Pretty ’contested risks and benefits’ (n 59) p. 253. He refers to it as direct and indirect effects on novel toxins.

189 _{David P. Clark & Nanette J. Pazdernik, Applying the Genetic Revolution (n 40), p. 418.} 190 _{Ibid, p. 419.}

191 _{The migrating monarch butterfly has fascinated generations of both public and scientific}

communities because of the beauty and complex biology. For more on the controversy see, Antony M. Sheton and Mark K. Sears, ‘The monarch butterfly controversy’ (n 130) p. 483-488.

192 _{WHO, ’20 Questions on Genetically Modified (GM) Foods’ (n 7).} 193 _{Jules Pretty ’contested risks and benefits’ (n 59) p. 253.}

120 hazard from agricultural biotechnology must be weighed against the clearly established benefits.194