"We used to think our fate was in the stars. Now we know, in large measure, our fate is in our genes," is the way this ideology has been formulated by James Watson, the Nobel laureate who participated in the discovery of the DNA double helix.

    Bill Joy introduced the reality and the risks of genetically engineered foods and products in his article "Why the Future Doesn't Need Us".  Yes, it may be true that genetic engineering demonstrates great promises to revolutionize agriculture by increasing the amount of crop yields while reducing the use of pesticides (Joy 244).  But did you ever stop to think about the amount and number of novel species of of plants, animals, bacteria, and viruses that results from genetic engineering?  Or what about the fact that genetic engineering replaces reproduction, or supplement it, with cloning?

    We find it mixed in our food on the shelves in the supermarket--genetically engineered soybeans and other products. We find it growing in a plot down the lane, test field release sites with genetically engineered rape seed, sugar beet, wheat, potato, strawberries and more. There has been no warning and no consultation. The reshuffling of genes usually from one species to another; existing examples include: from fish to tomato or from human to pig. By combining the genes of dissimilar and unrelated species, permanently altering their genetic codes, novel organisms are created that will pass the genetic changes onto their offspring through heredity.

Dr. Ricarda Steinbrecher thinks that there is yet a problem - a fish gene will not work in tomato unless given a promoter with a "flag" the tomato cells that  will recognize.  You may strongly agree that this genetic engineering business is serious.. Such a control sequence should either be a tomato sequence or something similar. Most companies and scientists do a shortcut here and don't even bother to look for an appropriate tomato promoter as it would take years to understand how the cell's internal communication and regulation works. In order to avoid long testing and adjusting, most genetic engineering of plants is done with viral promoters. Viruses - as you will be aware - are very active. Nothing, or almost nothing, will stop them once they have found a new victim or rather host. They integrate their genetic information into the DNA of a host cell (such as one of your own), multiply, infect the next cells and multiply. This is possible because viruses have evolved very powerful promoters which command the host cell to constantly read the viral genes and produce viral proteins. Simply by taking a control element (promoter) from a plant virus and sticking it in front of the information block of the fish gene, you can get this combined virus/fish gene (known as a "construct') to work wherever and whenever you want in a plant.

    This might sound great, the drawback though is that it can't be stopped.  Think that is bad?  Well, it can't be switched off either. The plant no longer has control in the expression of the new gene, even when the constant involuntary production of the "new" product is weakening the plant's defences or growth.  Often, for no apparent reason, the new gene only works for a limited amount of time and then "falls silent". But there is no way to know in advance if this will happen.  So, is this worth the risk?

    The general public is aware of the, and bothered about, the genetically modified foods, and seems to be rejecting the notion that these foods are not labeled as such.  It is too bad, considering that the genetic engineering technology is so much ahead.  According to Lovins, the USDA has already approved about 50 genetically engineered crops for unlimited release (Joy 244). The introduction of new genetically engineered organisms also raises a number of serious human health issues that have yet to be resolved. Health professionals and consumer organizations are most concerned about the potential allergenic effects of genetically engineered foods. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced in 1992 that special labeling for genetically engineered foods would not be required, touching off protest among food professionals, including the nation's leading chefs and many wholesalers and retailers.

    With two percent of adults and eight percent of children having allergic responses to commonly eaten foods, consumer advocates argue that all gene-spliced foods need to be properly labeled so that consumers can avoid health risks. Their concerns were heightened in 1996 when The New England Journal of Medicine published a study showing genetically engineered soybeans containing a gene from a Brazil nut could create an allergic reaction in people who were allergic to the nuts. The test result was unwelcome news for Pioneer Hi-Bred International, the Iowa-based seed company that hoped to market the new genetically engineered soy. Though the FDA said it would label any genetically engineered foods containing genes from common allergenic organisms, the agency fell well short of requiring across-the-board labeling, leaving The New England Journal of Medicine editors to ask what protection consumers would have against genes from organisms that have never before been part of the human diet and that might be potential allergens. Concerned over the agency's seeming disregard for human health, the Journal editors concluded that FDA policy "would appear to favor industry over consumer protection."

    We all know that when it comes to such issues, we have the tendancy to look at it in an "ethical" or "unethical" sense.  Well, the Chinese are now putting human genes into tomatoes and peppers to make them grow faster. You can now be a vegetarian and a cannibal at the same time! Is this etical?
 
 

Back to Home