CHAPTER 3: AN ASSESSMENT OF THE PROMISES AND THREATS OF GENETIC ENGINEERING AND BIOTECHNOLOGY TO AGRICULTURE,
3.1 The Promises of Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology
3.1.5 Adding value to the plants and soil
Similar to the promise of high yields, is the promise of raising the nutritional value of plants. The corporations promise to produce crops that contain higher amounts of vitamins to improve their nutritional quality. For example, genetically engineered
"golden rice" contains three transplanted genes that allow plants to produce beta- carotene, a compound that is converted to Vitamin A within the human body.
In addition to enhancing the nutritional properties of foods, biotechnology is being used to develop foods that have medicinal properties - so called functional foods or 'nutraceuticals.' Functional foods are products that are claimed to have a positive health benefit beyond 'normal' nutrition. These include, fresh fruit and vegetables with enhanced antioxidant content (Vitamins C and E, beta-carotene and Selenium); and brassicas with increased glucosinolates (anti-cancer substances). The genetic engineering of food crops to contain "health benefits" has also focused on vaccines - for example, hepatitis B vaccine.
The strong argument against this promise pertains to health itself. We may legitimately ask: how will the dose be controlled if such foods are consumed? Recent evidence shows that there are potential risks of eating such foods. This is so, because the new proteins produced in such ways could act themselves as allergens or toxins.
A further way in which biotechnology is being used is to enhance the ability of natural soil bacteria to give plants, nutrients, as well as natural fertilizer via nitrogen fixation.
Bruce argues that:
Inpractice, the introduction of the ability to fix nitrogen into plants is difficult and very complex, involving at least 15 different genes. The aim is to introduce either the ability to fix nitrogen directly or the ability to form a symbiotic relationship with Rhizobium, but either result is some way off yet. If this is successful, it could have a major impact upon world food supply, but it is also possible that it may not turn out to be quite the 'philosopher's stone' that is hoped.143
Another application to chemical processes in agriculture involves genetically engineered microbial products to increase their efficiency at modifying the acidity and other properties of silage and hay. Proponents of the technology argue that these microbes can dramatically reduce the losses in storage after harvesting which are caused by
. . . 144
contammatmg orgamsms.
Itis clear in this discussion of the promise of genetic engineering and biotechnology that GMOs present themselves as a solution to the global concerns about food security. To ordinary minds, the specific promises sound the 'Gospel' - good news or tidings of salvation. Surely, such a contribution to socio-economic development would be the timely blessing.
By way of concluding the section on the promIse of genetic engineering and biotechnology and introducing the next, it is important to note that opponents of the GE technology contend that almost all the claims made by Genetic Modification producers prove false: Yields do not increase, but shrink:; the use of chemicals does not diminish but rather increases; GM canola has become a super-weed, that is totally resistant to Round Up and which is growing everywhere; organic farmers have been destroyed - all the seeds are contaminated in Canada. Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, in succinct and crude terms, states that "GM crops are a dangerous diversion from the real task of providing food and health
143Bruce, Ibid. p.26
144Ibid. p.26
around the world and the promIses advanced by the MNCs are far from being materialized."145
3.2 The threats of GE Biotechnology
Here, we now turn to the arguments of those who oppose GMO's. As will be evident, many of the arguments against genetically modified organisms echo our theological principles established in chapter one.
3.2.1 Monopolistic and exclusive control and ownership of genetic resources by multi-national corporations
The revolution of genetic engineering and biotechnology grants power and control to a few biotechnologists and giant multinational corporations such as, Monsanto, Syngenta, Du Pont, Dow Chemical and Aventis Crop-science, in the United States of America and Europe, over and against genetic structures of animal and plant life forms as well as power over economic production itself.146 As a result, food security is placed in the hands of a handful of biotechnologists and big MNCs to the detriment of organic and community owned farming, and finally to the undermining of food sovereignty and livelihoods of the communities.
The multinational corporations even go to the extent of designing and securmg technological and legal tools to control the genetic resources. This is evident in instances of patents and similar mechanisms. This means that the MNCs control the supply of the biotech industry's products such as seeds, pesticides, food, and (pharmaceuticals). The natural and logical consequence of this is that, by controlling the supply, the multinational corporations also have the means of controlling the prices of such products.
145http: WWW.l-sls.org.// . . uk
146The big five MNCs: control markets and researchers (through contract obligations); pressurise
legislators; set up and fund 'non-profit' lobby groups; enforce patents; run illegal trials and take farmers to court; steal genetic resources from indigenous peoples and cultures; and develop 'terminator' seeds and 'traitor' crops. This is very sound and justifiable reason why many people are opposed to genetic engineering and biotechnology. See, Thayer, A.M., inChemical and Engineering News, September 17, 2001 Vo1.79, No.38, pp.25-32.
The implication of controlling such essential products such as seeds and food translates into the corporations having control over fundamental rights of access to food and nutrition. To this end, those that oppose the technology contend that genetic engineering technology aggravates starvation, food insecurity, poverty, and undermines people's sovereignty with regards to agricultural productive and genetic resources. This monopolistic power, ownership and control over and against animal and plant life forms is ethically unacceptable.