THE REST OF THE STORY: GENETIC ENGINEERING EXPERTS DISCLOSE WHAT THE
POPULAR MEDIA AND INDUSTRY SPOKESPERSONS
WON’T
An interview of author Brian Tokar
I had the chance to talk with one of
the Institute’s board members, Brian Tokar, who has
just finished his third book, Redesigning Life?, which was published in late
2001. Brian is a long time environmental and social activist,
has degrees in biology and biophysics from MIT and Harvard, and has written two
prior books, The Green Alternative and Earth for
Q: Brian,
what spurred you to write this book and what is it all about?
A:
I’ve been working for a
number of years on the problems of biotechnology and genetic engineering (GE)
and it’s been clear to me that there are
many scientific, social, economic and political issues connected with these
technologies, issues that many people were having a hard time sorting out.
There was no comprehensive overview of the full range of implications of
biotechnology. In the course of my work, I have met many activists and scholars
who have been studying these issues for years. Rather than attempting a
thorough overview myself, I thought it would be more useful to find some of the
most articulate people on each specific topic and ask them to write about their
areas of greatest expertise.
Redesigning
Life is divided into 4 sections: the environmental and health issues, mostly
related to food; medical genetics and human health; the social implications of
biotechnology; and the worldwide opposition to genetic engineering. Within each
section, there is a considerable range of coverage. Overall, there are 32
chapters, written by 26 different authors, including myself.
In
the first section, for example, we examine industry claims regarding
genetically engineered foods, particularly the false claim that these
technologies are the solution to hunger in the world. We examine the wide range
of health and environmental consequences of genetically engineered products
currently on the market. Further, Orin Langelle of
the Native Forest Network looks at the environmental consequences of the
genetic engineering of trees, and how this technology is affecting the forest
industry and biodiversity, and how these genetic engineering applications may
even be more sweeping than the effects of genetically engineered food crops.
The
second section focuses on human health, as well as the myths of cloning and so
called xenotransplantation – the use of genetically
engineered animal organs for human transplants. Several authors explore the
emergence of a new generation of eugenics, and look at the politics of health
with a view toward how genetic engineering will affect human health issues.
Hope
Shand of the Rural Advancement Foundation
International opens the third section with an overview of the biotech industry
itself. Among other things, she discusses the incredible wave of buy outs of
seed companies in the early ‘90s. Expanding from there, we look at some of the
international issues related to genetic engineering, including biopiracy. Michael Dorsey of the Edmonds
Institute and the Sierra Club writes about biopiracy
research that he has done in
The
fourth section tells the story of the growing opposition to genetic
engineering. As far as I know, it’s the first thorough treatment of this topic,
bringing together stories from the
Q: Many
people know of genetic engineering but don’t know how it’s done. Can you
briefly explain this?
A: Genetic
engineering involves the artificial transfer of genetic material, or DNA,
usually between unrelated species of plants, animals, bacteria, viruses and
humans.
The
two most common methods for gene transfer are biological and electromechanical.
Early experiments all involved changing DNA using bacterial vectors. Many
bacteria have part of their genome located on “plasmids,” which are small loops
of DNA outside their main chromosomes. These plasmids were first used as means
of transferring DNA. Later, to get foreign genes into plant cells, scientists
started using bacteria that infect plant cells. In mammalian cells, they often
used genetically engineered’d viruses; in some of the
most publicized experiments, modified cold viruses are used.
More
recently, the move has been away from biological vectors, which place some
constraints on gene transfer, and toward the use of a
“gene gun” which shoots high speed projectiles of gold or tungsten that are
coated with the DNA fragments of choice.
By
their very character, these technologies create inherent uncertainties. These
uncertainties are at the heart of the wide range of health and environmental
problems that have been discovered. When you use these technologies, you have
no idea where the foreign DNA is going to land if it’s taken up by the DNA of
the recipient cells. You also have no idea how it will interact with regulatory
genes, as well as the genes that code for various proteins.
The
success rate for all application of genetic engineering is vanishingly
small. That’s why they use antibiotic resistance genes as markers to see if the
intended transfer occurred. So, along with genes they seek to insert, they’re
injecting genes for antibiotic resistance. Those cells that didn’t take up the
foreign the DNA won’t survive antibiotic treatment. Additionally, they’re
injecting promoter sequences, usually from viruses, that facilitate the
disabling of genetic regulation in the host organism and, therefore, facilitate
the invasion of the host cells DNA by foreign DNA.
Q: What
do you say to people who say these technologies are no different than old
fashioned field crossing?
A: I
say that the analogy between genetic engineering and field crossing is a false
one, and a deliberate misrepresentation of what’s inherently unique about this
technology. For example, natural breeding only occurs with a species or across
species—in the case of some plants—that have very close evolutionary histories.
Genetic engineering completely overrides these natural constraints.
But
a more subtle and more significant difference is that in the natural world,
genes aren’t randomly inserted into new location in the genome, as they are in
genetic engineering. Genetic fragments that share the same location on the
chromosomes, but may have very different properties, can be exchanged. Such
genetic crosses are governed by complex genetic and biochemical controls. The
various molecular checks and balances that exist to facilitate a gene’s proper
expression aren’t overridden by traditional breeding. In contrast, they are
overridden by genetic engineering.
That’s
why you get some of the bizarre effects that have been reported, such as the
silencing of genes that have been genetically modified. For example, researchers tried to make
petunias twice as colorful by doubling the pigment gene. They ended up
producing some plants with no pigment at all. No one knows how it works but it
clearly has to do with overriding the processes that regulate gene expression.
There are many such examples. There were early attempts to get pigs to express
human growth hormone, in the hope of raising pigs with leaner meat. Instead
scientists found themselves with experimental pigs whose whole metabolism and
organ development was so distorted that they could barely stand up, were cross
eyed and couldn’t live normal lives, even though the only change intended was
to add the one gene that coded for human growth hormone.
Q:
Are the low success rates just a function of lack of experience? Will genetic
engineers get better with more practice?
A: Possibly,
but it’s important to understand that these failures are a function of the
inherent limitations of genetic engineering and a reflection of the fact that
in order for complex organisms to grow and function properly, they’ve developed
an incredible array of genetic controls. For example, there are specific
mechanisms to prevent invasions by foreign DNA. It is as if, on the genetic
level, there is a counterpart of the immune system. Instead of acting as an
immune system, these systems act to keep DNA intact. Genetic engineering has to
override the regulatory processes at the cellular level in order to produce its
intended effects.
Q: Should
we expect to see this industry fail over time because it is inherently,
biologically untenable?
A: Well,
it might. They’ve had a very hard time getting genetically modified organisms
to successfully express more than one or two traits, even though they’ve been
working on it for years. Further, the vast majority of genetically influenced
traits are not the product of a single gene.
You
learn in introductory biology that DNA is translated into RNA and then into
protein. There’s supposed to be a simple linear relationship. But in most
complex organisms it often takes many genes acting together to allow a certain
quality to be expressed. At the same time, a single gene may affect numerous
cellular processes. So, it’s many to one, and one to many. With those kinds of
traits we haven’t seen even the beginning of success.
This
industry has had billions of dollars of venture capital pumped into it, and the
research is very narrowly driven by the imperative of product development.
Virtually all the effort is going into identifying qualities that can be turned
into commercial products . We’ve had numerous
developments that the industry considers successes even though we’ve shown that
the negative consequences far outweigh the benefits. While there appear to be
inherent limitations, we have to remain vigilant to keep an eye on where the
industry is heading, so we can anticipate what the next generation of political
and social battles around these products will be. For example, it looks like
the next generation of products might be using animals and plants as
“bioreactors” to produce pharmaceutical and industrial chemicals. Of course, it
remains to be seen if this can be done properly.
Q:
In what ways are genetically engineered foods in US markets modified?
A: Basically,
genetic engineers have focused on three plant characteristics. First, they
attempt to make crops tolerant to herbicides so fields can be sprayed with weed
killers and only genetically engineered plants can grow. Of course, it turns
out to be much more complicated than that. Farmers often end up having to use
more chemicals than before. Second, crops have been engineered to produce a
bacterial pesticide toxic to specific types of field pests. The problems
associated with this approach would take too long to discuss here but pests can
develop resistance to these pesticides. They can harm beneficial insects like
ladybugs, honeybees, and of course monarch butterflies. The third area is viral
resistance. Of course, a plant that develops viral resistance may lead to a
natural backlash through the development of newer viruses that can surmount the
genetically engineered resistance.
Research
on genetic engineering in every case confirms what opponents have been saying
all along about the likely negative ecological consequences. But the problem is
that it is taking a long time for research on the negative consequences to
catch up with 15 20 years of research that has been rather narrowly focused on
the development of products. Corn, soybeans, cotton
and canola are the main genetically engineered crops. Over 60% of processed foods have one or more
of these products as ingredients. So, to get these products out of our food
supply is an ongoing battle.
Q:
What health effects are likely
to be caused by
the use of agricultural and human applications of genetic technologies?
A: This
isn't an easy question to answer, not because there aren't many likely effects,
but because the research on these effects has not begun to catch up with 20
years of corporate research aimed squarely at developing new products. We do know that the likelihood of unexpected
allergic reactions and increased levels of toxins in food is very high. Millions of dollars of genetically engineered
corn were recently pulled off the market remember the taco shell
controversy? because
a particular toxin gene spliced in from bacteria makes a protein that was seen
as likely to cause allergies in humans.
Even the generally industry friendly scientists at the EPA agreed that
there was a problem.
There's
also a problem with antibiotic resistance.
Since the success rates of experiments in genetic engineering are so
minuscule, they have to use a so called "marker gene" to see which
cells actually took up the foreign DNA.
These markers are usually antibiotic resistance genes so that cells with
no foreign DNA are killed by antibiotic treatment. The British Medical Association declared in
1999 that this practice should cease immediately, because antibiotic resistance
could be passed on to pathogens in our digestive tract. But it hasn't ceased at all.
Another
important thing that happened in 1999 was that a series of surprising
experiments were released in
Q: What
kind of economic and social impacts might we expect from these technologies?
A: I
think it's important to point out that the data on environmental impacts are
much clearer than for human health effects.
We know that genetically engineered crops can be lethal to beneficial
organisms in the environment, such as ladybugs and monarch butterflies. We know that other crops and related wild
plants can suffer genetic contamination through cross pollination, that we may
have 'superbugs' and 'superweeds'
due to unpredictable patterns of gene escape.
We also know that genetically engineered Bt
toxin leaches into soil and is stable for 8 months or more, where it can have
serious effects on the microbes that sustain soil fertility, etc. The next generation of genetically engineered
crops, many of which are designed as small 'factories' or 'bioreactors' to
produce drugs and industrial chemicals, could have even more serious effects.
Biotechnology
has been a vehicle for unprecedented concentration of corporate power over our
food and our health. For me, that's the
most serious social and economic impact.
This industry would love for farmers to become as beholden to the large
processors and distributors as, say, companies that make auto parts for Ford
and GM. The larger company completely
controls the supply, the price and the specifications, and the subcontractors
simply follow the requirements of their contracts, buy the right chemicals and
apply them according to a fixed schedule.
That's where many industry analysts say things are heading, and the
corporate concentration that both supports and is supported by the development of
genetic engineering is what could make this possible.
In
other parts of the world, people are protesting the loss of their ability to
save seeds due to technologies such as the Terminator seed, which is still in
the biotech pipeline. Gene
"prospectors" from Northern universities and corporations have been
searching the globe for interesting plants and even human genes that they can
patent and use for their own purposes.
The biotech companies profit, and people whose
ancestors first developed a plant variety or processing method may find that
their traditional practices are suddenly appropriated by some foreign patent.
This has happened with neem products and basmati rice
from
Q: Aren’t
vitamin A yellow rice and bananas that are supposed to deliver vaccines
examples of positive uses of GE?
A: The
whole “golden” rice phenomenon is largely driven by the biotech industry’s
public relations needs. Activists in the South have presented evidence of the
fraudulence of the claim that Genetically engineered
foods will solve problems of hunger. People in the
Scientists in
Regarding
the banana vaccine, we have no idea whether this idea will work. If you use
food to get a vaccine, how do you control dosage? Further, as a crop, what will
happen where there are other varieties of bananas or other species that can
cross pollinate and accidentally produce the vaccine protein? Who knows what
effect his might have on the metabolism and growth of that plant, or on people
who consume these unintended vaccine producing crops?
Q: To
what extent
have protests against rBGH (genetically engineered
Bovine Growth Hormone) or other genetically modified foods been successful?
A: From
everything we can tell, rBGH is not being used widely
by
American farmers who grow crops such as corn and soybeansare beginning to question the use of genetically
engineered crops as well. In
2000, for the first time, we’ve seen genetically engineered corn being grown on
significantly fewer acres of corn than the year before. That’s the first time
the acreage of a genetically engineered version of a crop has decreased from
one year to the next. Given the lack of markets, the inability of agribusiness
to force Genetic engineering down the throats of Europeans, and the recent
recall of taco shells made from corn with a pesticide tolerance gene that was
not even approved by EPA for human consumption, farmers will become even more
reluctant to grow genetically engineered crops.
Potatoes
are another example of the rejection of genetically engineered foods. Potatoes
designed to combat pests were one of the first genetically engineered foods,
but the damaging effects to beneficial insects are such that the use of Genetically engineered potatoes has dropped off
significantly. Major consumers from McDonald’s to a huge Canadian company
called McCain’s have told farmers that they just don’t want genetically
engineered potatoes.
Q: Why
isn’t opposition to genetically engineered foods in US as vigorous as in other
countries?
A: This
is a very complex question. Many glib answers have been offered, such as that
we simply haven’t had a major outbreak of mad cow disease in the
First,
the industry has succeeded in keeping this issue out of the media here. In the
summer of 1999, only one third of the people surveyed in US supermarkets knew
that there were Genetically engineered products
currently in our food supply. People just don’t know what’s going on. It has to
do with corporate control of the media. Food and science writers have been
intensely lobbied to keep genetic engrineering out of
the public eye.
There
are also significant differences in attitudes about food in general here in the
Besides,
in