Save Our Planet! | home
back to Tack Action
GMO's
What is Genetic Engineering?
Since the time that humans first started cultivating plants and raising animals for food, we have been striving to make food healthier and food production more efficient. Using the natural mechanisms of cross-breeding, which is nature's way of ensuring genetic diversity, we have been able to affect the biological traits of offspring by selecting and mating the parents that carry the traits we desire. Cross-breeding can only take place between species of plants and animals that are closely related genetically.
With the advent of genetic engineering, scientists are now able to surpass the natural barriers of cross-breeding. Genetic engineers can cut out bits of a living organism's DNA, called genes, and splice them into totally unrelated species. These scientists use enzymes to break the DNA strand at certain places, insert new segments, and "stitch" the strand back together again. They can "cut and paste" genes from one organism into another so that the genetic make-up of the organism is changed and its natural traits are manipulated in particular directions. Genetic engineering changes nature rather than using its own power.
DNA: The Blueprint For Life
A gene is a segment of DNA. Genes carry messages encoded in their chemical structure, so that together the genetic make-up of a living cell determines physical traits of that organism. The genes carry all the chemical instructions needed to make the organism behave in a certain way, and since they are passed on from one generation to the next, offspring inherit these traits from their parents.
There are literally millions of genes in a living organism and they don't just work on a "one gene, one trait" system. Genes are complex and work together to perform certain biological functions. By altering the genetic code of living organisms, genetic engineers are manipulating life processes. As more and more genes are isolated from their natural sources, scientists are able to control more and more aspects of life.
What Is Being Genetically Engineered?
The majority of the world's most important food crops have already been either tested for genetically engineered versions, or are under development. So far at least 38 different crop species have been genetically engineered and tested in field trials. Animal genes are going into plants, bacteria genes into food crops, and even human genes are being used to change animals and plants. Thousands of other new foodstuffs are waiting in the wings. Already in the laboratory a human gene has been added to salmon, trout, and rice; a chicken gene to potatoes; a fish gene to strawberries, mouse genes into tobacco; and bacteria and virus genes into cucumbers and tomatoes.
What Are The Impacts of Genetic Engineering?
"This is an imperfect technology with inherent dangers. ... It is the unpredictability of the outcomes that is most worrying." Dr. Michael Antoniou - Senior Lecturer in Molecular Biology - London.
Genetic engineering creates whole new life forms. These organisms are alive -- they can mutate, multiply, breed with other living things and go on breeding for generations to come. All over the world we have seen examples of long-term damage when non-indigenous species have been introduced into new environments. We know that changing one element of the environment sets off a domino effect of cascading changes throughout entire ecosystems. Yet industry maintains that its foreign species will not cause problems.
Who Says It's Safe To Eat?
Regulatory authorities who have allowed the use and distribution of genetically engineered products, including the USDA, FDA, EPA and the European Commission, rely solely on safety testing provided by the GE companies themselves.
Multinational companies who market the new crops say they are safe, but they have done scant tests to prove it. Industry health studies on GE crops are very limited in scope and duration. These studies did not include assessing the health affects of increased exposure to herbicide due to residues on herbicide-resistant food sources, or the affects of increased insecticide exposure due to pesticides incorporated in foodstuff. The only time the FDA requires further testing of a GE foodstuff is if one of 8 to 10 known allergens has been engineered into a plant. Assessing health hazards beyond a few well known allergens is not required.
Allergies could very well increase. Many people are allergic to food plants because of proteins produced by the plant as a defense against diseases and pests. Since genetically engineered plants are specifically designed to produce increased quantities of these proteins, the risk of allergies is also increased.
Governments have expressed fears that crops containing an ampicillin resistance gene could undermine the treatment of human and animal disease. Ampicillin is one of our most important antibiotics. It is feared that the resistance gene could spread to harmful bacteria - making them immune to this vital treatment.
Who Says It's Safe To Grow?
Field trials to measure environmental impacts of GE crops are also usually short term and small scale, rarely lasting for more than one growing season. It could take years for most ecological effects, such as genetic pollution and increasing pest resistance to pesticides, to be seen. Tiny trial plots cannot possibly reflect the damage that could be done by planting huge tracts of countryside with genetically engineered seeds.
Scientists at Riso National Laboratory in Denmark have found that, through spontaneous cross-fertilization, genetically engineered canola can pass its herbicide resistance genes to weedy relatives. The offspring resulting from the cross-breeding of the GE and weedy plants were not only herbicide-resistant, they also were capable of passing on resistance to subsequent generations.
It is generally regarded as bad pest management practice to use the same pesticide, or one with the same mode of action, continually on a cropped area. This course of action inevitably leads to a buildup of resistance to the toxin in crop pests. Farmers using crop chemicals have seen over the years that, as pest resistance develops, more chemicals are needed to have the same effect. Resistance to Monsanto's Roundup herbicide has been documented to occur after relatively minimal exposure over a long period--one Australian farmer noted resistance to Roundup after fewer than six applications over the course of ten years. Tiny test plots can't possibly determine the long range impacts of genetically engineered crops.
The Precautionary Principle
Precautionary standards are a normal part of everyday life -- when the prospect of harm is large and the uncertainty is great, our ability to predict the future is limited so we take a precautionary approach. The Precautionary Principle holds that, 1) the burden of proof of safety rests with the proponent of a new technology, not the public; and 2) where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of science should not be used as an excuse for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Get quick answers to the most commonly asked questions about GMOs. 
If governmental organizations are being careless in their regulation of GMOs- is there any litigation against them? Q: How do you define gmo? A: A genetically modified organism (GMO, also called "genetically engineered") is a plant, animal or microorganism (eg, bacteria) that is created by means that overcome natural boundaries. Genetic engineering involves crossing species which could not cross in nature. For example, genes from a fish have been inserted into strawberries and tomatoes. While the Food and Drug Administration insists that foods produced by genetic engineering are the same as foods from traditional breeding, their own scientists reported that, "the processes of genetic engineering and traditional breeding are different and... they lead to different risks." (1)
The most widely grown GMO crops are soybeans, corn, canola (rapeseed) and cotton. Almost all GMOs grown today are in one of two varieties: "insect resistant" and "herbicide tolerant" crops. The insect resistant crops are also known as "plant pesticides" because the crop is considered (and regulated as) a new insecticide. The crop produces an insect toxin as it grows, in every cell of the plant throughout the entire growing season. When you eat GMO insect resistant corn, for example, you are eating a pesticide.
About 70% of the acreage of GMOs in the U.S. is in "herbicide tolerant" varieties. These crops are engineered to withstand direct application of toxic weed killers. Previously a farmer had to be cautious when using herbicides, because the plant poisons could kill the crop. Now the crop is genetically altered so that it will not be harmed by the chemical. This means farmers can spray weed killers right on the crop - and it means more chemicals on our food.
(1) Discovery documents from the lawsuit against the FDA, Alliance for Bio-Integrity et al v. Shalala, May 1998. Center for Food Safety, 666 Pennsylvania Ave SE, Washington, DC 202-547-9359.
For more information, check out the following fact sheets:
Q: Doesn't genetic engineering allow farmers to use less pesticide? A: The vast majority of the GMOs growing today are engineered to withstand direct dosing with farm chemicals. These crops mean more chemicals on our food and farms, not less.
Some GMO crops are engineered to produce their own insecticide, in hopes that farmers will then spray less often. At best, results with these crops have been mixed, as farmers still must spray their fields for insects that are not killed by the inserted toxin (1). And in the long run, these GMO crops may destroy organic farming - so farmers who use no pesticides will be out of business.
(1) Andy Coghlan and Barry Fox, "Genetically modified plants may still need pesticides", New Scientist, December 18, 1999.
Q: If governmental organizations are being careless in their regulation of GMOs- is there any litigation against them? A: FDA has allowed GMO foods on the market with no requirements for pre-market safety testing or labeling. In May 1998, a coalition of scientists, consumer groups, and religious leaders filed a lawsuit against FDA calling for mandatory testing and labeling of GMO food. In March 2000, Greenpeace joined a coalition of over 50 environmental, consumer and family farm groups in a legal petition to FDA, calling the agency's posture on GMO foods wholly inadequate to protect human health and the environment. We also joined many of these groups in a petition last year calling on FDA to take bovine growth hormone, a GMO drug used in dairy production, off the market.
In 1997, Greenpeace also initiated legal action against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). We were joined by 35 organic and family farm organizations, the International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements (IFOAM), and the Center for Food Safety in calling on EPA to cancel the registration of genetically engineered insect resistant crops. Organic farmers are especially concerned about the risks from these crops, since scientists say that widespread planting of the GMO crop will lead to insects that are resistant to a biological insect control that many organic farmers use to protect their farms. Despite this and other risks, EPA continues to allow widespread planting of insect resistant potatoes, corn and cotton.
Q: Don't GMO foods lead to bigger crop yields which will feed more people? A: None of the GMO crops on the market today have been engineered for higher yield. In fact, a two-year study at the University of Nebraska showed that the most widely grown engineered crop, Monsanto's GMO soybean, actually yields less than natural soy varieties (1). The Nebraska research confirmed findings from the University of Wisconsin and other independent trials comparing GMO versus non-GMO soy. An analysis of 8,000 trials found that non-GMO soy yields were significantly higher than the GMO variety (2). In 1999, a US Department of Agriculture report compared yields of biotech and natural varieties. There was a statistically significant yield gain in the biotech variety in only four of twelve region-crop comparisons. In seven there was no difference, and one region showed a significant yield loss for farmers using GMO seed (3).
Biotech companies like to use the argument of feeding more people in their PR. But this subject requires a closer look at the causes of hunger. The world currently produces enough food to provide every person on the planet with over four pounds of food a day. Hunger is the result of poverty and unequal access to food, not a lack of food (4).
(1) "Study shows genetically altered soybeans produce lower yields," Associated Press, May 17, 2000.
(2) Benbrook, Charles. "Evidence of the Magnitude of the Roundup Ready Soybean Yield Drag from University- Based Varietal Trials in 1998," Ag BioTech InfoNet Technical Paper Number 1, July 13, 1999.
(3) See Jane Rissler, Union of Concerned Scientists Review of USDA Economic Research Service (ERS).
(4) See, for example, Peter Rosset, Joseph Collins, and Frances Moore Lappé, "Lessons from the Green Revolution: Do We Need New Technology to End Hunger?", Tikk.un Magazine, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 52-56, March/April 2000
Q: How do most farmers feel? A: Greenpeace is concerned that farmers are not getting the whole story about GMOs from biotech companies. European and Asian rejection of GMO food has caused U.S. farmers hundreds of millions of dollars in lost exports (1), and with consumer concern rising here, there are more problems for farmers looming. Many family farm organizations are deeply concerned about GMOs making farmers more dependent and less financially secure.(2)
(1) Brian Halweil, "An Industry in Trouble," Yes!, Summer 2000.
(2) The American Corn Growers have expressed concern about marketability of GMO crops, see their press releases. The National Family Farm Coalition also actively opposes GMOs.
Q: Is it true that food companies don't sell GMO food in Europe, and if so, why?A: Europeans share the concerns that American consumers have about GMOs: like Americans, they don't want to take a chance with foods that are produced with a radical new technology that has not been proven safe for the environment or human health in the long-term. Food companies like Kellogg's have responded to European demand for non-GMO food. But in the U.S., Kellogg's and many of these same companies say they use GMOs. They claim that the FDA says GMOs are safe.
In America, the government is not taking action to inform consumers about GMOs or to even let us know, by labeling, that we are eating GMOs. Consumer demand brought about labeling in Europe. Once labeled, food companies found no market for GMO food. Consumers in America must let food companies know that they don't want GMOs either.
Q: What does labeling look like in Europe? A: The European labeling law went into effect in September 1998, yet most foods made with GMO ingredients are exempt. Labels are required only on products that are not highly processed and in which GMOs are a major ingredient. These products generally have the phrase "made with genetically engineering" on the ingredient list or elsewhere.
But most food companies have found that there isn't a market for GMO- labeled food. Rather than labeling their products, they have simply stopped using GMO ingredients. Major companies like Kellogg's have pledged to eliminate GMOs from their European products. Yet Kellogg's and others still use GMO in their food here. And since it's not labeled in America, most consumers don't know they're eating GMOs.